Lynn Woolsey: A National Embarrassment

The American Thinker ^ | January 08, 2011 | Nancy Morgan

[Scanian]

My nephew, Lance Corporal Lee Morgan, will be deploying to Afghanistan next Friday. This will be his second tour of duty there. Lee will be putting his life on the line, once again, fighting a war which is described by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) as "an epic failure, a national embarrassment and a moral blight."

While my nephew is risking his life to fight the war on terror, Ms. Woolsey is exercising her right to polish her moral vitaes (on the backs of others) by blithely passing judgment on what the Obama administration has re-defined as merely an "overseas contingency operation." Rep. Woolsey's right, by the way, has been granted her by the blood of Lee's compatriots and all the other brave young men who have died in service to our country.

Spitting on the graves of those that have died in their nation's service is just one of the rights secured to Ms. Woolsey by the blood and sweat of others. A free press is another right. The same press that has maintained a deafening silence about this war, ever since it became Obama's war. The same press that reports Ms. Woolsey's inane pronouncements without offering vital context.

Though Ms. Woolsey makes ten times the money my nephew does, he is the one who does the heavy lifting. He is the one on the front line, braving Taliban bullets and following orders. Ms. Woolsey, on the other hand, spends her time, along with fellow democrats, improvising insane rules of engagement which make his job much more dangerous. She is also busy ensuring that terrorists are given the same rights as the Americans they are so intent on killing.

Ms. Woolsey, courtesy of our complaisant media, is given the moral high ground.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Remember two important things. First, the Democrats are our enemies via the friend of my enemy is my enemy principle. They hate us and support anyone else who hates us.

Second, many don’t appreciate the military, even at military funerals. They think they do. They try to, but it is almost impossible, for their life doesn’t change because of the Marine. His does but theirs stays the same. That is the beauty of the men and women in the military. They fight and die so you don’t have to change.

Don’t let it slip away with the false promises of false gods.

[nuconvert]

“A National Embarrassment “

Is there anyone in this Administration who isn’t?

[hal ogen]

...not only a “national embarrassment” but also “anti-American loser of the first degree”.

[nathanbedford]

Though ignored by the media, over 1,449 of our our soldiers have died in Afghanistan to date.

Nearly 1500 faithful and unbelievably courageous Americans have died to make America safer.

I do not engage in cheap shots, but I must ask if another 1500 courageous Americans in sequence sacrifice their lives will America be twice as safe? With 4500 dead will we be three times as safe?

We must remember that this is a war against terrorism, a war which is asymmetrical. If we give up thousands of American lives in Afghanistan and they give up 19 lives to knock down the the World Trade Center, who wins?

[Mmogamer]

Troops died under Bush, yes.. but with he ridiculous rules of engagement in place since 0 took office, they are being feed into a taliban meat-grinder...outrageous.Where’s Medea attention whore at now? Anti-war left nutters, where are they?
Hypocrites!

[Rappini]

Thank your Nephew for his Service for me.

[artichokegrower]

Lynn C. Woolsey (born November 3, 1937) is the U.S. Representative for California’s 6th congressional district, serving since 1993. She is a member of the Democratic Party. The district includes all of Marin County and most of Sonoma County. She gained attention when she became the first House member to call for a troop withdrawal from Iraq.[citation needed] She is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and as of 2010 its co-chair. Woolsey, who described herself as “the first former welfare mother to serve in Congress,” is one of two members of the House to have been on welfare; the other is Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-WI).

In 2007 Woolsey voted to “recognize the commencement of Ramadan,” the most important of Islamic religious observances, and of Diwali, a Hindu religious holiday. On December 11, 2007, Woolsey, along with eight other Democrats, voted against a resolution to recognize the United States as a Christian nation.

In September 2000 Woolsey sponsored H.R. 4892, The Scouting for All Act, to revoke the charter held by the Boy Scouts of America because of its stand against allowing homosexual boys to become members.

[Morgan in Denver]

You can add a third.

No matter what is said, the issue is about money and power. The Democrats reward supporters with money who in turn give money to Democrats to maintain their power. And yes, there are some Republicans who do the same thing. However, the success of this scheme requires a politician who is corrupted by the system to keep it in place: usually a Democrat and always a progressive who would force their will on everyone else.

[Uncle Hal]

Unfortunately Lynn Woolsey is my congress person. She has been in office for 7 or 8 terms and is 75 and has talked about retiring. Everybody you talk to cannot stand her but she wins by huge margins every time she runs. I live in Sonoma County which voted 2 to 1 for Obama in the last election. So no matter who replaces her, the next person in office will be an ultra liberal.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Nearly 1500 faithful and unbelievably courageous Americans have died to make America safer.

I do not engage in cheap shots, but I must ask if another 1500 courageous Americans in sequence sacrifice their lives will America be twice as safe? With 4500 dead will we be three times as safe?

Forgive me for not being able to follow your argument but it seems pure poppy cock to me. How safe is twice as safe? Three times as safe? Are you suggesting these soldiers died in sequence? Are you suggesting a ritual sacrifice, one by one, to appease an enemy? Will you please try again because I just don't get it.

We must remember that this is a war against terrorism, a war which is asymmetrical. If we give up thousands of American lives in Afghanistan and they give up 19 lives to knock down the the World Trade Center, who wins?

Once again I don't understand. Are you suggesting that the only lives the terrorists have lost were the 911 suicide bombers? Are you suggesting we should not have taken the fight to the enemy, but instead should have hunkered down on defense? I think that if we do not take the fight to them they win, period! In fact, I think we should have much more liberal rules of engagement and really take the fight to them. It is better to fight them there than to fight them here.

What is your plan? Please help me understand a better way.

You certainly don't seem a good example of your namesake, Confederate General Nathan Bedfrod Forrest, who said get there firstest with the mostest.

[Political Junkie Too]

It must be something in the water in Marin county.

Woolsey has the seat that was held by Barbara Boxer before Boxer won her Senate seat.

-PJ

[Lancey Howard]

Nothing from Woolsey surprises me.
She’s just a pig.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

No matter what is said, the issue is about money and power.

Absolutely right! Saul Alinsky used to teach that it is never about the policy (global warming, civil rights, health care, etc.) but always about power. As far as money, they have a genius for getting us to pay them to destroy us. In turn, they call the Republicans the party of the rich and the party of corruption.

[okie01]

The district includes all of Marin County and most of Sonoma County

Lynn Woolsey was which character in The Serial?

[nathanbedford]

I do not apprehend why it is my responsibility to defend the war in Afghanistan. It is the war which burns dollars and kills our people. Nathan Bedford Forrest was always ready to fight to gain an identifiable end but I am not aware that he was willing to bankrupt his cause and effuse blood to no end. It seems to me the burden to justify sacrificing our boys is on you.

You must somehow convincingly tell us how killing some tribal, bearded Muslim whose grandfather fought Winston Churchill 100 years ago and whose grandsons will fight our grandsons 100 years hence is somehow related to terrorism in New York City.

Even though I have no such burden, I enclose a reply from a long time ago which addresses some of your questions which I do not believe are ingenuous:

"I take it you have had good experience in shoveling flies?

As a strategy for fighting the war against terrorism one could hardly conceive of a strategy better calculated to lose the war against terrorism than your "flypaper doctrine." One does not win asymmetrical wars by playing your opponents game. America cannot sustain long-term wars and cannot sustain casualties. 1.6 billion Muslims have a nearly infinite supply of martyrs eager to trade their lives for American lives. I cannot imagine any strategy which would make Osama bin Laden happier than one in which we trade, even at an uneven ratio, American lives for cheap and expendable Islamist lives.

If you think the trading lives in godforsaken places like Afghanistan has even the slightest hope of preventing another 19 terrorists from committing another outrage on the American homeland, you have departed reason entirely. Could you please explain how killing ragtag combatants in Afghanistan will stop terrorists in downtown Manhattan? Are you implying that, contrary to my first post of this series, that Islamists cannot find as few as 19 terrorists even if they are fully occupied in places like Iraq or Afghanistan? The idea is patently absurd.

The flypaper doctrine is the strategy best calculated to lose a Western power the asymmetrical war against terrorism."

It is not merely an afterthought anymore, where are you going to get the money to pay for this? How many billions of dollars a day?

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I do not apprehend why it is my responsibility to defend the war in Afghanistan. It is the war which burns dollars and kills our people. Nathan Bedford Forrest was always ready to fight to gain an identifiable end but I am not aware that he was willing to bankrupt his cause and effuse blood to no end. It seems to me the burden to justify sacrificing our boys is on you.

I was simply trying to understand what you were saying. This post better explains it. However, it also raises more questions. Don't all wars "burn dollars and kill our people."? Are you a Pacifist?

Nathan Bedford Forrest had no control over monetary costs but he did frequently disobey his superiors and dared them to do anything about it. He even told General Bragg to stop sending him orders because they just got in his way and that he was not going to obey them.

If a cause is a just cause, as I believe fighting the Islamists is, then we are not sacrificing our boys the way your use of that term implies. They are soldiers who are fighting to gain an objective. That is what soldiers do and some of them die in the process. All of them volunteered to do just that.

You must somehow convincingly tell us how killing some tribal, bearded Muslim whose grandfather fought Winston Churchill 100 years ago and whose grandsons will fight our grandsons 100 years hence is somehow related to terrorism in New York City.

I have no obligation to convincingly tell you anything. I could not understand your argument and I asked you to clarify it. You did but I disagree with it. That is what we do on FR, debate things. I don't run the country and I can't commit anyone to anything. This debate took place in 2001 and 2002 by those who are much better informed of all that was involved than either you or I. The Obama administration is continuing the policies of the Bush administration so there must be some justification for it.

As far as our ability to defeat the Muslims I greatly disagree with you. The Christian Crusaders did it thousands of years ago with weapons far less lethal than we have today. Our main enemy is here at home, the Democrats. They deserted the Vietnamese in the 1970s and millions died as a result. Their interest is in our losing this war, not winning it. They propagandize for the enemy and they force us to fight under rules of engagement that are designed to make sure we don't get the job done. You are aiding and abetting the Democrats and you are using the same arguments they do.

The average citizens of these Muslim countries don't want to be ruled by the Wahhabis but they don't want to strongly oppose them either for fear that we will desert them just like we did the Vietnamese and they will be left to the mercies of those who have no mercy. Were we to hold the line and fight this war as we should the terrorists in New York and elsewhere would die on the vine from lack of support and low morale.

As far as costs are concerned, how much will it cost to lose the war? Had the Obama administration not purposely bankrupted the country affording the war wouldn't be nearly as difficult. Regardless, some wars must be fought no matter the costs if we are to survive. This is one of them.

Your Fly Paper Strategy may sound good to you but it is just mental masturbation. Churchill and the British prevailed in the Mid East and thoroughly subdued the Muslims and it stayed that way until the end of WWII.

Your tuck tail and run strategy, saying we cannot win and it costs too much, besmirches the name of Nathan Bedford Forrest. Learn more about him before you try to ride on his coattails.

[nathanbedford]

It is better to fight them there than to fight them here.

With all your paragraphs of words built cliché upon cliché there is simply not a single word telling us why the war in Afghanistan is making us safer. No better example of your attachment to cliché is required than the quote taken from your first post above.

The policy you support is killing Americans, it is contributing to the bankruptcy of America, and you are utterly oblivious to the need to justify it.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

The policy you support is killing Americans, it is contributing to the bankruptcy of America, and you are utterly oblivious to the need to justify it.

Most of what I have said justifies it but discussing with you is like debating a kid, or a liberal. You see what you want to see and shut your mind to the rest.

As I have said, war kills people. War costs money. Demean it by calling it a cliche all you want but it is still true that fighting them there is better than fighting them here. That was the justification for WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the First Gulf War, Desert Storm, Afghanistan and Iraq. And guess what, Nathan Bedford Forrest? Each one cost lots of money and killed lots of people, but it was still cheaper and better than fighting here.

I would be happy to hear your comprehensive and convincingly expressed plan to solve the problem of terrorism but you have none. I am done with you!