What Do They Stand For?
This past week has been quite informative if you were wondering where the Democrats stood on Iraq. When Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed, Nancy rushed to the microphones to say that this good news was reason to start pulling troops out "as soon as practicable." John Murtha said that (a) we're losing, (b) we can't win this militarily, (c)
Iraqis are fighting Iraqis in sectarian violence, and U.S. troops have become the target and that (d)
we can't get them to change direction. He then cites
We also had the spectacle of Hillary getting booed for saying...well, it's difficult to tell what she was advocating. We know that she's opposed to an open-ended commitment to Iraq, which would lead a logician to think that she's for setting a deadline. Except that she said that she's opposed to setting a deadline, which would lead a logician to think that she's for an open-ended commitment to winning in Iraq. Except that she omitted any mention about winning.
The bottom line is that Hillary, Pelosi and Murtha either don't care if we win (Hillary and Pelosi) or don't think we can win (Murtha) and that the moonbats at the Take Back America conference don't want to stay long enough to win.
This shouldn't be lost on the American people. While it's true they don't like being at war, it's also true that Americans expect winning when we put troops in harm's way. And with good reason. We've only lost one war and that's only because the political leaders that John Murtha likely looked up to didn't have the steadfastness of conviction to win the war, not because we couldn't win it.
When you enter the voting booth, ask yourself if you want to vote for someone who wants to deprive the terrorists of a safe haven in Iraq or if you want to vote for someone that wants to cede Iraq to Iran and their state-sponsored terrorists. That should clear off the fog of war.
Posted Monday, June 19, 2006 5:00 AM
May 2006 Posts
No comments.
"In Beirut President Reagan changed direction, in Somalia, President Clinton changed direction, and yet here with the troops out there every day, suffering from these explosive devices, and looked at as occupiers."As I've noted before, bin Laden saw Clinton's cutting and running in Somalia, done at Murtha's behest, as proof that America was a paper tiger that didn't have the will to win a war. Yet John Murtha points to that change of strategy as proof of his wisdom. If ever there was something to hang your head in shame about, telling a president that the world's superpower couldn't win a military battle with a third world warlord should be it. Yet he wears it as a badge of honor.
We also had the spectacle of Hillary getting booed for saying...well, it's difficult to tell what she was advocating. We know that she's opposed to an open-ended commitment to Iraq, which would lead a logician to think that she's for setting a deadline. Except that she said that she's opposed to setting a deadline, which would lead a logician to think that she's for an open-ended commitment to winning in Iraq. Except that she omitted any mention about winning.
The bottom line is that Hillary, Pelosi and Murtha either don't care if we win (Hillary and Pelosi) or don't think we can win (Murtha) and that the moonbats at the Take Back America conference don't want to stay long enough to win.
This shouldn't be lost on the American people. While it's true they don't like being at war, it's also true that Americans expect winning when we put troops in harm's way. And with good reason. We've only lost one war and that's only because the political leaders that John Murtha likely looked up to didn't have the steadfastness of conviction to win the war, not because we couldn't win it.
When you enter the voting booth, ask yourself if you want to vote for someone who wants to deprive the terrorists of a safe haven in Iraq or if you want to vote for someone that wants to cede Iraq to Iran and their state-sponsored terrorists. That should clear off the fog of war.
Posted Monday, June 19, 2006 5:00 AM
May 2006 Posts
No comments.
