Posts
"PROVIDING aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason. It's not "just politics." It's treason. And signaling our enemies that Congress wants them to win isn't "supporting our troops." The "nonbinding resolution" telling the world that we intend to surrender to terrorism and abandon Iraq may be the most disgraceful congressional action since the Democratic Party united to defend slavery."
Lieutenant Colonel and Military Historian, Ralph Peters 
Another take on the "I support the troops but oppose the mission" nonsense.
Larwyn’s Linx: Republicans Must Defend Matt Gaetz To End The Use Of
Salacious Lies In Politics
-
*Send us news tips! Sponsored by My Private Journal*
Bug-Zapper Indoor Outdoor - Blue Tech
Nation
• Republicans Must Defend Matt Gaetz To End The Use Of...
7 hours ago
Please follow this link to the American Enterprise website. You will find an incredible article written by Sen. Webb describing the aftermath of the Democrats cutting off funds for the Vietnamese in 1975. Please compare his words in 1997 to the words of Democrats today regrading Iraq.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.16181/article_detail.asp
Is Peters serious?
ReplyDeletePassing a resolution opposing the president's troop increase is not "providing aid and comfort" to the enemy. I don't agree with the wording of the resolution either, but suggesting that the Democrats are on the side of the terrorists is immature and misinformed. The Democrats are merely doing what the American people told them to do in November - get us out of Iraq. By calling congressional Democrats traitors, I guess he considers the majority of the country traitors too...
I agree with jeremy that Peter's use of the word "treason" is inflametory. However if there is a word that is one step below treason, that is the word that I would have used. It is no coincidence that allies such as Britain, Denmark and Luthuania announced withdraw of their troops from Iraq shortly after this congressional vote. This is a blatant political move in wartime. If they were serious about getting out of Iraq they would simply have voted to kill the funding. They did not have the gut to do that so they looked for a political statment withiout having to suffer the political fallout. That is playing politics with our troops lives. In some ways, a "non-binding" resolution is more damaging to to our troops than simply cutting off funding. Furthermore, I do agree with Peters that The "nonbinding resolution" telling the world that we intend to surrender to terrorism and abandon Iraq may be the most disgraceful congressional action since the Democratic Party united to defend slavery.
ReplyDelete