| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ubiquitous" |
| Date: |
30 May 2007 06:45:50 AM |
| Object: |
But they support the troops! |
"Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ended the suspense tonight, joining
12 other senators, all but two who were Democrats, in voting against the Iraq
War spending bill because it didn't contain a timeline for withdrawing U.S.
troops," reports the Chicago Tribune. Six senators didn't vote, so the final
tally was 80-14.
Actually, three of the 14 "no" votes came from Republicans--Richard Burr of
North Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Mike Enzi of Wyoming. We're
guessing their objection was to something in the bill other than funding the
troops.
In addition to Clinton, Obama and "presidential candidate" Chris Dodd, seven
left-wing Democrats and one independent self-styled socialist voted "no":
Barbara Boxer (Calif.)
Russ Feingold (Wis.)
Ted Kennedy (Mass.)
John Kerry (Mass.)
Pat Leahy (Vt.)
Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.)
Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.)
Ron Wyden (Ore.)
"Voting against the bill allows both Clinton and Obama to compete on an equal
footing with each other for the large bloc of anti-war voters who could decide
the nomination," writes the Trib's Frank James:
But should either become the nominee, tonight's vote could be
exploited by Republicans to attack the Democratic nominee as
weak in fighting the war on terror and of not supporting the
troops.
Our guess is it won't end up hurting the nominee much unless the Democrats
eventually succeed in forcing a retreat from Iraq. Liberal blogs have been
abuzz with claims that the Democrats are behaving foolishly because opinion
polls show that something like 70% of the public favor withdrawal. But public
opinion is fickle. When the liberation of Iraq began, 70% of the public
supported it.
A small minority--call it the Democratic base--would actually like to see
America lose in Iraq. To them, the enemy is their domestic adversaries, not
their country's foes. Markos "Kos" Moulitsas summarizes the attitude well:
I've got to say, of all the things that get me down about
this job, there's nothing worse than the people who want
to quit the game and take their ball home every time we
face a setback. It's as if every word I've ever written
about this being a long-term battle means zero. As if it's
instant gratification or nothing.
We face a multiple-front war--against conservatives, against
an out-of-touch and corrupt beltway consultant class, against
corporatist Democrats, or Democrats that long ago lost the
fire in their belly, and against a compromised punditry elite.
Those are tough opponents, and it'll be a decades-long fight.
The voters who have switched sides, by contrast, have done so because they
don't want America to lose. Right now, they think America is losing, and they
blame President Bush. If the Democrats "succeed" in actually bringing about
American defeat, our guess is that the voters will blame--not credit--them.
--
The trouble with American journalism, in short, isn't that it's too skeptical,
but that it's too willing to throw skepticism to the wind when it suits the
agenda of proclaiming every war a Vietnam and every Republican president a
Nixon.
.
|
|
| User: "Commandicator" |
|
| Title: Re: But they support the troops! |
30 May 2007 08:35:59 AM |
|
|
In article <0cWdnTV4xfpt_sDbnZ2dnUVZ_uLinZ2d@giganews.com>, Ubiquitous
<weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
"Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ended the suspense tonight,
joining
12 other senators, all but two who were Democrats, in voting against the Iraq
War spending bill because it didn't contain a timeline for withdrawing U.S.
troops," reports the Chicago Tribune. Six senators didn't vote, so the final
tally was 80-14.
Actually, three of the 14 "no" votes came from Republicans--Richard Burr of
North Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Mike Enzi of Wyoming. We're
guessing their objection was to something in the bill other than funding the
troops.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ONLY A COMPLETE IDIOT IS INCAPABLE OF DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN MATERIEL
SUPPORT OF TROOPS AND SUPPORT OF THE POLICY WHICH DETERMINES THE
MISSION OF THE TROOPS.
SUPPORT THE TROOPS; BUT CONDEMN THE POLICY WHICH USES THEM.
------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ubiquitous" |
|
| Title: Re: But they support the troops! |
05 Jun 2007 05:04:21 PM |
|
|
In article <300520070635595136%>,
wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ONLY A COMPLETE IDIOT IS INCAPABLE OF DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN MATERIEL
SUPPORT OF TROOPS AND SUPPORT OF THE POLICY WHICH DETERMINES THE
MISSION OF THE TROOPS.
SUPPORT THE TROOPS; BUT CONDEMN THE POLICY WHICH USES THEM.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Your keyboard's "shift key" is broken; do get it fixed. You have
enough strikes against you as it is!
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: But they support the troops! |
31 May 2007 09:40:25 PM |
|
|
On May 30, 8:35 pm, Commandicator <netp...@pochta.ru> wrote:
In article <0cWdnTV4xfpt_sDbnZ2dnUVZ_uLin...@giganews.com>, Ubiquitous
<web...@polaris.net> wrote:
"Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ended the suspense tonight,
joining
12 other senators, all but two who were Democrats, in voting against the Iraq
War spending bill because it didn't contain a timeline for withdrawing U.S.
troops," reports the Chicago Tribune. Six senators didn't vote, so the final
tally was 80-14.
Actually, three of the 14 "no" votes came from Republicans--Richard Burr of
North Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Mike Enzi of Wyoming. We're
guessing their objection was to something in the bill other than funding the
troops.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ONLY A COMPLETE IDIOT IS INCAPABLE OF DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN MATERIEL
SUPPORT OF TROOPS AND SUPPORT OF THE POLICY WHICH DETERMINES THE
MISSION OF THE TROOPS.
SUPPORT THE TROOPS; BUT CONDEMN THE POLICY WHICH USES THEM.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm for the war but against the troops.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: But they support the troops! |
30 May 2007 10:08:54 AM |
|
|
On May 30, 9:35 am, Commandicator <netp...@pochta.ru> wrote:
ONLY A COMPLETE IDIOT IS INCAPABLE OF DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN MATERIEL
SUPPORT OF TROOPS AND SUPPORT OF THE POLICY WHICH DETERMINES THE
MISSION OF THE TROOPS.
Once upon a time I would have thought that the Democrats were wrong
for thinking that the majority of voters would be included in that
group, but after the past few years, i don't totally blame them for
being worried.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
