Democrats: Stop Supporting Our Troops

The World According to Imal ^ | May 3, 2004 | Imal

[Imal]

Throughout the Iraq campaign, we have heard the same refrain from the Democrats: "We oppose the war in Iraq but we support our troops." This alleged support manifests itself many forms. But first, let me explain why I am singling out the Democrats for my request.

There are some who take pains to claim that effort to undermine our troops in Iraq is not the work of Democrats, but of "Leftists". Where we might have been able to reasonably distinguish between "Democrats" and "Leftists" in the past, such a distinction no longer makes sense. This is particularly true in light of the fact that so-called "Conservative Democrats" are effectively extinct.

A comparison of the platforms of the Democratic National Committee and the Communist Party U.S.A. reveals no significant differences. Delineations between them are increasingly cosmetic and increasingly meaningless. Thus I address my request not to the "Leftists", but to the Democrats.

Lest I give the wrong impression, I am adamant that the "opposition party" do its work in keeping the "ruling party" under control. That includes holding the Bush administration accountable for any discrepancies or improprieties that may need investigation. It does not include spreading rumors, false charges, whispering campaigns, propagandizing against America or opposing the use of force in Iraq after having voted to support it. Throughout, the Democrats have done all these things, to their eternal and historical disgrace.

So, in what forms do Democrats support America's troops?

For starters, they claim that the war they are fighting is a sham, that it is an illegal war, that it is a war for oil, that it is "Bush's War", that it is a war intended to line the pockets of Halliburton, that Saddam posed no threat to the U.S., that the war is distracting America from the War on Terrorism and thus undermining U.S. security, that the war is driving away our allies and alienating us from the world, that the war violates U.N. "sovereignty" and international law, that Iraq is a quagmire, that our troops are deliberately targeting innocent civilians and committing atrocities, that our troops are incapable of winning and that they are dying in vain.

Democrats of all stripes denounce U.S. "unilateralism", dismissing coalition partners as "window dressing" and demanding that the United Nations, which itself disgracefully and impotently withdrew from Iraq following a terrorist attack, somehow find the will and ability to return and take control of Iraq.

Democratic activists on MoveOn.org, a website originally founded to urge America to "move on" and forget about President Clintons sexual trysts in the Whitehouse and subsequent perjury, claim that Iraq is "Out of Control" and that "America, acting alone, is no longer capable of reaching the hearts and minds of Iraqis, who increasingly see us as an occupying power, not a liberating one."

They offer an online petition demanding a transfer of "management authority" to the U.N. Perhaps, someday, after they reconsider their retreat from Iraq, that might even be feasible. For now, the message to our troops is clear enough: "You can't win."

Democrats carp and criticize President Bush for his carrier landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln, his daring and dramatic visit to Baghdad to have Thanksgiving dinner with U.S. troops, all the while apparently oblivious to the ways in which their criticisms dismissively and cynically insult not only the sailors and soldiers who were involved in these events, but the very idea of the president visiting them in the field.

Is there any circumstance where President Bush might visit our troops without arousing the breathless indignation of the Democrats? Or should the president ignore our troops instead? How does Democratic chest beating over "publicity stunts", effectively seeking to place presidential troop visits off-limits, support our troops?

If they have a better way to stimulate troop morale, they are keeping it far more secret than the war plans, intelligence briefings and classified memos they routinely leak to the press.

On the floor of the senate, Democrats offer denunciations ranging from the demented ramblings of Senator Robert Byrd to the podium-pounding, purple-faced condemnations of Senator Ted Kennedy. Senator Kerry boasts of having voted for funds necessary to conduct the Iraq campaign before voting against them -- after voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

Their messages, that our soldiers are dying needlessly, engaged in a wrongful war, fighting "Bush's Vietnam" and are unworthy of U.S. funding for their operations and protection no doubt cheer up our troops. I am sure America's soldiers unanimously wish to thank these senators for their kind and thoughtful words, and for their "support".

Regarding Vietnam, the senators are right in some respects. There are parallels. "Anti-War" protesters are indeed just a step away from calling our soldiers "baby killers" and spitting on them. Just as in Vietnam, Democrats voted to authorize military force, and then later sought to undercut financial support for the war. Are they committed to once again giving us another Fall of Saigon like they did 30 years ago?

There is an inescapable sense of deja vu when one witnesses the hedonism and carnival atmosphere surrounding the protests aimed at the War in Iraq, that condemn our president and our troops as "murderers". All of which takes place under the approving nods of Democratic leaders, galvanized publicly and loudly in their opposition to "Bush's Quagmire".

The Democrats' bizarre notion of supporting our troops is best summed up by their own flagship statement "We oppose the war in Iraq but we support our troops". This puzzling declaration explicitly claims that our troops are fighting and dying for a cause not worth fighting and dying for, that their mission is wrong, and that what they are doing is therefore wrong. "We despise the evil that you are doing, but we support you personally." I'm sure our troops are gratified every time they hear this.

In no uncertain terms, Democrats are telling our troops that while they "support them", they also believe that our troops are fighting an immoral war, murdering innocent civilians and harming our nation. With support like that, our troops don't need enemies.

The bottom line is this: If you oppose what our troops are doing, you are opposing our troops.

So Democrats, if this is the kind of support you have to offer our troops, please be so kind as to stop supporting them.

[Imal]

The author of this blogsite is not a Conservative, Neo-Conservative nor a Republican.

[BykrBayb]

If they have a better way to stimulate troop morale, they are keeping it far more secret than the war plans, intelligence briefings and classified memos they routinely leak to the press.

Such an eloquently stated truth!