“Our God given unalienable rights are given to us all as individuals. They tell us what we may do for ourselves, and they are the embodiment of liberty.
The so-called rights that government gives to some of us are parcelled out to select groups as classes. They tell us what one class of people may require another to do for them, and they are the very essence of slavery.”— Perri Nelson, February 9, 2010
A bheil Gàidhlig agaibh?
Democrats want U.S. to lose
Published Mon, Apr 2 2007 3:53 PM
Technorati Tags: Democrats
It should be obvious by now. The Democratic party wants the U.S. to lose the war on terror. The left wants the U.S. to suffer a humiliating defeat so that we will all be "taken down a few pegs".
They don't support the troops. They don't support their mission. They don't support democracy or freedom.
Why anybody believes otherwise is a mystery to me.
Sure they SAY they support the troops. But if they don't get their time-table for withdrawal from Iraq written into law they promise to cut of all funding for the operations that are currently underway.
What that means should be obvious. To put it quite simply, the Democratic leadership has promised that if we don't agree to an arbitrary date, set by them, to have our troops out of Iraq, that they will stop paying for food, ammunition and medical care for the men in the field. That's what Harry Reid means when he says he supports the troops.
Harry Reid will abandon the men and women in the field if he doesn't get his way. His idea of supporting the troops is to force them to abandon their work unfinished.
Can somebody explain to me how you support someone while saying that you don't want them to do what they were hired to do? Can somebody explain to me how telling someone to leave, knowing full well the work isn't done, and that if they don't leave they will not be given the materials and equipment needed to do the work is support?
It's obvious as well that the Democratic leadership doesn't support the troops mission. If the mission is to ensure that Iraq can stand on its own, how does setting an arbitrary date accomplish that? Sure, it may send a message to the Iraqi government, but I don't think it sends a message of support.
As for the enemy, what sort of message does it send to them? I believe it tells them "Hang on just a little longer. If you can hold out until March 31, 2008, you can have your way with Iraq, because we'll be gone."
This is exactly what happened when we left Viet Nam. Nobody could call that a "victory" for the United States. The Democratic congress and the left abandoned a nation and a people that needed our support to survive. What followed was the bloody massacre of millions. We didn't achieve "peace with honor". Instead we dishonored the sacrifice of every U.S. soldier that fought in that war. We left Viet Nam in shame and disgrace.
That's what the Democratic leadership wants us to do in Iraq. They want the U.S. to disgrace itself yet again.
Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0)
Blogs Against Nancy Pelosi
