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.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=575
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2007/4/2/575.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
Akber Ali responded with: You are wrong
 | If you kindly look at the history you will find that democrats always worked towards stopping the war.
I simply odn't understand the logic of going to Iraq in the first place. Please note the following
1. Powel spoke lies in the UN that there are are WMD in Iraq - right
2. There was a proof of no links between alQaeeda and Iraq
So why why why Bush invaded Iraq.
About democracy - who gives you powere and authority to tell me what is right and wrong for me? |
Perri Nelson responded with:
 | I have looked at the history. The Democrats did NOT always work towards stopping the war. Please note the following, as you say:
- Saddam Hussein and Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. The United States, together with a coalition of nations went to war with Iraq to return Kuwait to the Kuwaiti people. In 1991, Saddam Hussein signed a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement. In this agreement, Iraq unconditionally agreed to, among other things:
- eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs.
- eliminate the means to deliver and develop them.
- end its support for international terrorism
- Iraq in flagrant violation of the cease-fire agreement thwarted the efforts of United Nations weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons programs, resulting in the removal of the weapons inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998.
- In 1998, the Congress of the United States determined that Iraq was in material and unnacceptable breach of its international obligations and urged then President Clinton to pursue a policy of regime change in Iraq
- On multiple occasions, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people as well as the peoples of other nations.
- In 1993, Iraqi agents attempted to assasinate former President George H. W. Bush
- At the time of the Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Iraq was known to be harboring members of Al Qaida.
- On literally thousands of occasions Iraq fired upon United States and Coalition forces engaged in enforcing United Nations Security Council resolutions
- Iraq never complied with the cease-fire agreement of 1991 by returning Kuwaiti properties that were seized in the invasion of Kuwait.
- WMD caches, although smaller than expected were found in Iraq.
- Iraq's weapons programs were never fully dismantled. Many thousands of documents detailing those programs and more were until this last fall available on the Internet.
Further, you will find that the United States is not a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Representative Republic.
Further, the aforementioned resolution was authorized by the majority of our Congress, including a large majority of Democrats. I can point you to several quotes from prominent Democratic party members that not only supported the war, but continued to support the war. Among these are Speaker Pelosi, and Sen. Clinton.
Powel did not speak lies. He spoke as he did based upon the best available intelligence at the time. Intelligence that was also confirmed and supported by British and, yes, French intelligence.
Our Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war and to authorize the use of Military force. Our Constitution gives the President the power to act as the commander in chief. It's a shame that you can't understand that Akber Ali. |
John Beaman responded with: Twisted truths are also lies.
 | Akber Ali probably believes the the aircraft carrier banner "Mission Accomplished" was put there by Bush too. It was actually put there by the salors on the carrier to signify to Bush that "their mission was accomplished." Seems the ilk lof Akber wants to twist the truth to the detrement of our nation.
Side question.. Where did any Republican say that Saddam was part of 9/11 as they continue to report as the basis of thier arguments? |
Perri Nelson responded with:
| It's not just Akber Ali that wants to twist the truth and re-write history. The Democrats in Congress have been trying to do that for the past six and a half years.
As far as I know no Republican ever said that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. The Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 did mention Al Qaeda and Iraq though: Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility
for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests,
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are
known to be in Iraq; I think that more than anything, this is what the left continues to misinterpret as saying that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. |
Comments to this entry are closed.