David Broder Libels Democrats
Tweet
David Broder, the most insider of Washington insiders, perpetuates a lie and smears the Democratic party in "reporting" on this past weekend’s meeting of the DNC.
One of the losers in the weekend oratorical marathon was retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who repeatedly invoked the West Point motto of "Duty, Honor, Country," forgetting that few in this particular audience have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military.
That’s just a boldfaced lie by Broder, no two ways about it. I happened to be in attendance at the speech in question, just a stone’s throw away from General Clark when he gave it. What David Broder is saying here is an absolute lie. The crowd in attendance stood on their feet, clapped their hands loudly and strongly time and time again when speakers – including Gen. Clark – invoked the service and sacrifice of America’s fighting men and women.
In fact, in the very speech Broder cites as his reasoning for Democrats not supporting the military, Gen. Clark asked for a moment of silence (see the video here) to reflect on the sacrifices being made by the troops currently serving. The auditorium was silent, and many bowed their heads in prayer.
David Broder is a filthy liar, and the Washington Post ought to correct the slander he’s published in their pages. For too long the Republican party and the conservative movement has smeared Democrats and liberals as not supportive of the troops, when time and time again it is the right who does not look out for their interests as Democrats and liberals time and time again fight for good foreign policy, veterans benefits, and the basics of body armor for our troops.
Again I say, David Broder is lying.
MORE: David Broder is, like much of the media establishment, no stranger to deception.
143 Responses to “David Broder Libels Democrats”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
As McCain has put it, if you really think the war is as bad as all that, then the democrats (and few R’s) should vote to not fund it anymore. It is the only moral thing to do.
But let’s allow an active duty soldier explain to Oliver and his ilk exactly what it is they do when they “support the troops, but not the war”…
People like Cindy Sheehan are ignorant. Not just to this war, but to the results of their idiotic ramblings, or at least I hope they are. (snip) . And every day, the enemy changes…only now, the enemy is becoming something new. The enemy is transitioning from the Muslim extremists to Americans. The enemy is becoming the very people whom we defend with our lives. And they do not realize it. But in denouncing our actions, denouncing our leaders, denouncing the war we live and fight, they are isolating the military from society…and they are becoming our enemy.
Democrats and peace activists like to toss the word “quagmire” around and compare this war to Vietnam. In a way they are right, this war is becoming like Vietnam. Not the actual war, but in the isolation of country and military. America is not a nation at war; they are a nation with its military at war. Like it or not, we are here, some of us for our second, or third times; some even for their fourth and so on. Americans are so concerned now with politics, that it is interfering with our war
http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/e_jeffers/02012007.htm
So I guess it is the troops that don’t actually think the democrats support them either….
You mean like when you write, “All People Who Still Support The Iraq War Are Idiots” that you are really not insulting the troops who still want to complete their mission?
What a douchebag.
That is all.
You have some idiotic trolls on here.
Jeebus. Do these trolls have rocks in their heads? The leaders of Enron did some crappy things. They cheated a lot of people. They pulled some despicable shit. That doesn’t mean that the rank and file, most of whom believed that the company was a good company (because they were deceived), were also crooks. They weren’t the bad guys. They simply worked for an organization that was run by assholes. Same thing with the military. The people who got us into this godforsaken war are a bunch of lying assholes. They should be held accountable for pulling an enormous deception over, not just on the American people in general, but our military in particular. The kids (and a lot of them over there are just that) fighting in this mess aren’t the ones who got us into this mess; so, as a war opponent, I have no beef with them. But I think the assholes who cooked the intelligence books (and it wasn’t the CIA, but those who ignored the CIA) to get us into this mess should go to jail.
It’s not that hard a concept. But the dumbass rank and file in the Republican party who would rather have a bunch more kids die than admit they (the dumbasses) were had by a bunch of crooks at the top continue to read from their dumbass script that says that war dissent equals treason. That’s their dumbass story and they’re sticking to it.
Like it or not, we are here, some of us for our second, or third times; some even for their fourth and so on. Americans are so concerned now with politics, that it is interfering with our war
I have doubts about the authors service, but take his eliminationist rhetoric seriously.
Dude, It is the war mongers who are playing politics with the soldiers, and no misreading of history is gonna change that.
That said, you would be advised to check under your bed every night for which ever BoogieStrawMan or StrawMen scares the bejeebus out of you.
It they, he, she or them, were probably not there when you went to sleep, but they might be there tonight……Under. Your. Bed!!
.
To be fair, looking at Broder, it’s entirely possible he forgot the entire conference seconds after it ended and filled in the gaps with some old Randolph Scott movies.
The troops are adults. They volunteered. They keep reenlisting. The majority want to complete their mission.
But to OW and his “We support our childlike troops” commenters, the troops who support their mission are “idiots”.
“They keep reenlisting. ”
Even when they are forced to, by stop-loss. Funny, that.
Ollie, your knickers are in quite a twist. A little sensitive on this issue / fact, perhaps?
Geez Pedo, we didn’t know you served in Iraq. Good for you. If you are still there, keep your head down.
I think it’s time to repost the “Who has Served?” list:
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
The majority want to complete their mission.
And what is their mission, exactly? (I thought it was “accomplished” years ago.)
the troops who support their mission are “idiots”.
Well, if they think they can bring democracy to the Iraqis by killing them, then yes, they are idiots. And if they think this war is in any way winnable . . . well, I wouldn’t call them idiots for that, but I would suggest that perhaps they lack perspective.
And for the record, if I have to support the war in order to support the troops, then I most emphatically do not support the troops. But I reject that false dichotomy.
Considering the number of vets who were just elected to Congress I’d have to say there are more Democrats with military service records than Republicans there now. Further, most of those Dem vets campaigned in opposition to the Iraq War. Broder is wrong on nearly all points. The right-wing commenters here also seem trapped in a Ramboesque view of the politics of service people.
My brother served in Iraq. He’s solid conservative. He supported the invasion. He now wants us out. I think his views are more typical of vets than what the commenters are putting out. Military Times polling showed support for the “Surge” at only 38% amongst active duty military.
Pedro: America is not a nation at war; they are a nation with its military at war.
For a short time, this country was utterly united and ready to follow the President anywhere.
So he told us to go shopping, and then attacked a country that hadn’t attacked us.
He’s asked for sacrifice from NOBODY except the military. There’s no rationing, no war bonds, no tax increase, no calls from the President for all able-bodied Americans to pick up arms and fight.
And somehow this is the Left’s fault.
Most of these comments support Mr. Broder’s thesis quite nicely.
Even when they are forced to, by stop-loss. Funny, that.
Really? What evidence do you have that they are “forced to”?
I know personally, two people who put their two years in and are done. They weren’t ‘forced’ to re-enlist.
Oh and saying, “What’s with the trolls” is nothing more than a translation of, “Well, I don’t have a response that contains any semblance of intelligence, so I’ll just call them trolls and snicker.”
Posting a comment that disagrees with Oliver’s point of view does not make one a troll. If somebody left a comment that said, “Oliver, you’re stupid”, that would be the mark of a troll.
Get it right folks.
And I’m sorry, but JWG is 100% right. This “We support the troops” bullshit that comes from the left is complete nonsense especially when all they hear from such simps is that our troops are “dying for nothing” and also very subtle accusations that those troops, the majority of which support the President, “really don’t know what’s going on.” Translation: “They’re stupid, don’t know any better and are just doing what they’re told.”
All those should go watch this video. Of course, that’s the opinion of just a few of those “stupid” troops you wholeheartedly claim to “support.”
Stop-loss is not considered reenlistment. Reenlistment is at high rates.
Get your facts straight. This is typical of the inability of too many democrats to understand how the military works.
I’ll never understand how the ‘leaders’ who continually place the military in harm’s way with no clear mission/exit strategy (not to mention proper equipment) are said to ‘support the troops’.
I served in the military. And I’m one of those awful nutcase extreme liberals.
And you know what? While I was in, I wasn’t a baby. I didn’t walk around every day constantly afraid that some civilian wasn’t ‘appreciating’ me enough.
I didn’t collapse into morale-busting tears if a politician disagreed with another politician.
I wasn’t sent to Gulf War I, but my fellows were, and you know what? They also didn’t cry if there was an anti-war protest or if some politicians disagreed with the need for a war.
For some reason, those who don’t serve seem to think they have an obligation to see all military service personnel as petulant infants.
They portray our service members as whiny babies who freak out when there’s an argument over politics and policies. NEWS FLASH: OUR TROOPS ARE NOT INFANTS, THEY GREW UP HERE IN THE U.S.A. AND THEY DON’T CRY WHEN POLITICIANS ARGUE OVER POLICY.
Broder gets more out there every passing day. Note to Broder: please hurry up and die.
What concerns me more are rightwing neo-conic killers who in a heart beat would and who apparently fully intend to turn on the american people “they so generously sacrifice to defend” as the next carnal biscuit to chew through in the adrenalin rush they seek like sharks who never sleep or stop searching for the next cellophane enemy of their own making after being buzzed up with phoney intel they dont even care to examine for veracity. Some people think a crew cut and throwing in with Rush Limbaugh will pave over the potholes in their character or that decent people wont figure out why they hide behind the mask of murderous, mindless mayhem in non-stop hostility toward anyone and anything. Dick Cheney prefers shooting 73 priviously penned birds in a setting, not because he’s a sportsman it’s because somethng that takes skill like skeet (clay pigeons) wont bleed and die for him. face the facts … Commander a Chief is a zero and people like pedromd07 followanyone who will allow them to butcher to impress.
Well said, El Cid. That’s the thing about the whole “Support the Troops” tripe. It’s not pro-troops; it’s anti-american.
The last congress (109th) that was seated in 2005:
31% of Senate were veterans
25% of Representatives were veterans
13% of general public were veterans
I don’t know the Rep/Dem breakdown.
I also don’t know the current (110th) statistics.
But it’s interesting that our congress has more veterans than the general population.
Man. If all these chest-thumping war-mongering morons enlisted, we would have a lot of bodies to throw into the meat-grinder in Iraq.
But then it would reduce the average IQ of our army to below that of the Commander-in-chief and that may probably be classified as “not supporting our troops”
Here’s another republican talking point.
Throwing our troops into the meat-grinder is “supporting our troops”
Cutting veterans benefits back home is “supporting our troops”
Now, let me try to reconcile that.
Oh!! I see it now. We support our troops “there” so we don’t have to support them over “here”.
Stop-loss is not considered reenlistment. Reenlistment is at high rates.
And the choice is between taking the re-up bonus or being stop-lossed or called up out of the reserves — active or inactive — anyway.
Really, don’t piss on our backs and tell us it’s raining.
Jay C’s military experience: 0
JWG’s military experience: 0
The recent Military Times (Dec 06) poll puts a kibosh on the meme that the troops want to “complete the mission.” A Zogby poll of deployed troops in Iraq drives a stake through the heart of the meme.
I fully understand and support our troops while they do their assigned ‘mission’.
Unfortunately the ‘mission’ has morphed multiple times since the inception…far away from the authorization granted by Congress.
I applaud our troops for defending their brothers in arms and returning time and time again to keep their brother safe. However..our troops are now the armed referees in a civil war that, because of inept leadership at the highest level, they basically caused.
Yes…the strife in Iraq is the fault of the US…but not of our troops themselves….just our lack of vision by our leadership…the same lack of vision that is keeping them unjustly in harms way in a created country that wants to dissolve back into factions….egged on by neighboring countries using Iraq as a proxy for their fight….over oil.
Oil…we are fighting for the Saudi’s while they are gouging our pockets with their companies reporting record profits….. while US blood lies spilled…but not Saudi blood.
Man. If all these chest-thumping war-mongering morons enlisted, we would have a lot of bodies to throw into the meat-grinder in Iraq.
Another lazy ‘argument’ forever used by the left.
I read that this morning, too, and my jaw dropped. Not because, as you say, the crowd was enthusiastic, but just the notion that liberals don’t have experience with, or sympathy for, the military.
I believe it’s a Republican who is in the process of destroying our military, Mr. Broder.
-
You wanna support our troops Jay-boy?
Take half the money you spent on this stupid cluster-fuck and distribute it among our troops.
Maybe, I’ll persuade some of them to stand guard outside your room as you sleep at night, so you don’t wet your bed thinking about all them terr’ists.
Democrats:
—————-
John Murtha: 37 years in the Marines.
Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star,Vietnam. Paraplegic from war injuries. Served in Congress.
Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars,and Soldier’s Medal.
Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
Chuck Robb: Vietnam
Howell Heflin: Silver Star
George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311.
Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and AirMedal with 18 Clusters.
Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.
Republicans
——————
George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard duty; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
Dick Cheney: did not serve. Five deferments.
Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
Tom DeLay: did not serve.
Roy Blunt: did not serve.
Bill Frist: did not serve.
Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
Rick Santorum: did not serve.
Trent Lott: did not serve.
John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
Jeb Bush: did not serve.
Karl Rove: did not serve.
Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. “Bad knee.” This is the man who attacked Max Cleland’s patriotism.
Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
Vin Weber: did not serve.
Richard Perle: did not serve.
Douglas Feith: did not serve.
Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
Richard Shelby: did not serve.
Jon Kyl: did not serve.
Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
Christopher Cox: did not serve.
Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non- combat role making movies.
B-1 Bob Dornan: Intentionally enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
Phil Gramm: did not serve.
John McCain: Vietnam POW, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
John M. McHugh: did not serve.
JC Watts: did not serve.
Jack Kemp: did not serve. “Knee problem,” although he continued in the NFL for 8 years as quarterback.
Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
George Pataki: did not serve.
Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
John Engler: did not serve.
Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.
Pundits
————————-
Sean Hannity: did not serve.
Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a pilonidal cyst.)
Bill O’Reilly: did not serve.
Michael Savage: did not serve.
George Will: did not serve.
Chris Matthews: did not serve.
Paul Gigot: did not serve.
Bill Bennett: did not serve.
Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
John Wayne: did not serve.
Bill Kristol: did not serve.
Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
Ralph Reed: did not serve.
Michael Medved: did not serve.
Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
Ted Nugent: did not serve.
Stop-loss is not considered reenlistment. Reenlistment is at high rates.
Re-enlistment rates are high mostly due to huge signing bonuses. However in order to maintain its recruitment numbers, the US military has had to lower its standards of entry, specifically the “morality” standard.
Individuals who have been convicted of serious crimes such as theft and rape are now wearing the uniform, where just a few years ago this would have been prohibited.
Incidentally, please spare us the “Democrats don’t understand the military” garbage. Many Democrats have served in the military and many have family members serving.
One’s party affiliation doesn’t come with an automatic understanding of any topic, including the military. Frankly, there are many serving in the military right now who believe that Iraq is a complete mess and that the “mission” is nonexistent.
To pretend that most or all of those serving are of one mind on this issue is ludicrous and untrue.
And while I’m at it–David Broder is a disingenuous, lying hack.
I read that this morning, too, and my jaw dropped. Not because, as you say, the crowd was enthusiastic, but just the notion that liberals don’t have experience with, or sympathy for, the military.
Cuz nothing says “sympathy for the military” like sending them off to a country with virtual targets painted on them..without the necessary tools to fight back and protect themselves.
I get the idea that there must be some pool of dumbasses who just desperately WANT to believe that Broder is somehow a sober, reliable and responsible commentator.
In NW Baltimore, there is a noted “spiritualist” named the Rev. Sister Faye. Rev. Sister Faye has maintained her place of business at the corner of Park Heights and Northern Parkway near Pimlico for at least 25 years (I am 37 and she was doing spiritualist counseling there when I was in the 6th grade.) People desperately want to believe that this fortune teller knows the truth. So they pay her. And she thrives. Unlike stock brokers but like Broker, she is constitutionally exempt from regulation or reliability for her advice and analyses under the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment (freedom of speech and of the press for Broder.)
So that’s it. Broder is the Georgetown, West-of-the-Park crowd’s equivalent of Sister Faye.
Gosh, in only Clark had sat out the Vietnam War snorting cocaine, shirking cushy ANG duty, and binge drinking. Or maybe he could have gotten a series of deferrments.
Or perhaps he could have joined the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, who are valiantly letting others serve abroad while they fight the Most Awesomest War Ever from behind a keyboard. (I think some are chiming in here. Good job men, you’re not a bunch of total fucking pussies–all bark and no bite— like that wimpy fraud Wes Clark. Keep it up!)
Then he’d have some real War Cred. Ah, what might have been…
What a surprise. Jadegold is back with his proven lies.
Ahh, the new troll method – just straight up LIE and pretend that you’re an enlisted soldier who just happens to read lots of blogs and leave lots of comments spewing right-wing idiocy. Do you all not see how transparently desperate you are? Last real poll of the military I saw showed a majority wanting to end the “mission” and go home, so suck on that. Not to mention the vast majority of Americans and an even more vast majority of Iraqis.
Broder, a leftist, is correct. Progressives strongly dislike the military – always have. Don’t forget Wm Arkin’s little anti-military diatribe. That epitomizes the left’s hate of the military.
So I guess it is the troops that don’t actually think the democrats support them either….
“Troops”? Uh, no. That would be one “troop,” supposedly.
You really are dumb enough to be a conservative, pedromd07.
.
Dave G. has it exactly right and the trolls that got in early on this thread are undoubtedly in the ‘pundit’ category in terms of service. But the even more important point is who serves those who serve better those for whom war is a last resort or those for whom war is a fratboy game with other people’s lives.
The one and only “General” is right.
This is an Eternal War to Resubjugate the Brown People (c) — Jesus’ General
That was not a scientific poll. It was a mail-in survey. The publisher even said it couldn’t be used as a valid indicator.
I think the only reason Republican leadership pretends to like the military is for the big contracts awarded to their donors. When it comes to benefits for vets and soldiers they just seem to be disengaged.
And Dave G, you left out GW Bush’s biggest TANG assignment: as escort to Nixon’s daughter. TANG Gigolo.
You have the best trolls Oliver. Whenever I read about the need to listen to the troops and just to do what the troops want, I just go back and read General Smedly Butler’s speech, about how little independant thought he had while in the military. You know the guy who won 2 Medals of Honor.
Great work, OW!
Broder writes that few people in the audience had military experience or understands the feelings, desires, motives, and actions of the troops (i.e. sympathy).
Commenters on your blog give us:
soldiers are children meme – check
Troops reenlist because of money – check
chickenhawk meme – check
calls for Broder to die – check
AWOL/cocain Bush – check
Rush Limbaugh mentioned repeatedly – check
Fears that dissent = treason – check
Claiming the Right is “anti-American” – check
the “Brown People” meme – check
OW brought them all out!
You forgot -
Shorter JWG: I have no life.
Check out all the nonresponsive, fact free right wing morons posting in the comments here. Seems to me like some Giuliani-style cleanup is in order.
Here’s a Zogby poll from a year ago. The majority of the troops wanted us out within the year.
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
No Penalty For Lying
Over at Hullabaloo, Tristero describes this conversation with a respected journalist about the manufactured smear of
Completely ignore the words of the active duty soldier who says the leftists are hurting the war effort, except to suggest that he doesn’t exist without any basis in fact.
Check
To be fair, Pedro, you didn’t put quotes or anything around any part of that post, so it was hard to tell where your ramblings left off and his began.
But it sounds to me like your active duty solider doesn’t think he’s fighting Muslim extremists so much as he’s fighting discouraging words at home. I guess when the objective of the war has changed over and over again, he can be forgiven for forgetting exactly what he’s doing over there in the first place.
Broder is part of the horseshit echo chamber, where the fact of his saying that teh librulz dont care about the troops is not simply supposed to be self-evident, but self-perpetuating circular logic. The mere speaking the meme grants it legitimacy, and the legitimacy of the meme gets it spoken more. So in spite of the applause Clark recieves, Broder, without evidence (in deed in spite of it) claims that Democrats basically dont like the military.
But surely there is truth in the argument itself that doesnt need to even be addressed right? Surely the argument is so self evident that the rightward leaning trolls here dont need to even argue it and can instead just repeat the basic thesis of “teh librul hatez teh troops” right?
Well okay then, let me ask, if I am a progressive, what exactly about me makes me a troop-hater? Is it how I object to our presence there in the absence of any stated military objectives? Is it how I object to Bush’s cutting of veterans benefits? Is it how I object to Bush claiming he listens to the generals one minute then says he’ll decide whatever he likes in spite of them? Is it how I want to make sure they have adequate body armor and equipment to complete whatever job theyre still over there to do? Is it that I’m concerned about their ability to address real threats from, for instance, Iran and Syria (to say nothing of Al Qaeda) when they are stuck in Iraq?
Or is it that I just disagree with the President that proves I hate the troops? Is that all it takes? That I have the temerity to question him as he issues orders that few if any of his generals agree with and his country does not, by and large, support? Is it the fact that I agree with the majority of Americans that means I hate the troops? Is that what it takes to make me an enemy of America?
What benefits were cut?
Where did Broder make this point?
They Destroy Our Leaders
Most of the Democratic leadership are veterans, and all the veterans who ran for Congress or the Senate in this last election ran as Democrats. I think no Republican leaders except McCain ever served in the military. But that doesn’t…
sorry for the quote problem michael, I forgot that liberals rarely actually follow the links to the primary document before going off half-cocked about how wrong the author (whom the critic never actually READ) was…
And rex, I don’t think it is self evident that liberals hate the troops, but I did in fact link you to an active duty soldier in Iraq who does.
See, we conservatives like to back up our arguments with factual data, rather than just reverting to childhood taunts
An opinion column doesn’t count as factual data.
“31% of Senate were veterans
25% of Representatives were veterans
13% of general public were veterans
I don’t know the Rep/Dem breakdown.”
Guess we’ll have to use Dave G.’s stats.
What benefits were cut?
Mostly medical and housing.
WashPo-2003: Support for Troops Questioned
See pedro, we tehlibruls like to back up our arguments with analysis and studies, not with opinion columns. But then its a democratic report, and they cant be trusted because they hate the troops, right?
Where did Broder make this point?
When he said that Democrats have no real sympathy for people who put themselves in harms way in the name of protecting the American citizenry I think.
I write letters:
ombudsman@washpost.com:
In a column dated Tuesday, February 6, 2007 (Page A17), David S Broder says, “few in this particular audience [DNC meeting] have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military.”
It is ridiculous and highly inappropriate for him to suggest that only a few attendees of the Democratic National Committee meeting have “sympathy for the military.” Does he have any proof of such a statement. Did the DNC hold a secret vote expressing a lack of sympathy for the military?
Please review this column and let us know what has been done to correct this outlandish statement.
(lutton)
Philadelphia, PA
That was not a scientific poll. It was a mail-in survey. The publisher even said it couldn’t be used as a valid indicator.
As opposed to your “the troops support the war because I say so” scientific survey.
interesting about cutting benefits. Didn’t Arkin just write a column about how members of the military are supplied with an outrageous amount of largesse? I wonder which it is. No doubt its both.Oh well–since we should only attack countries which attack us, refresh me about the attack on the US by the Kosovars? My newspaper subscription was lapsed, I think.
See, we conservatives like to back up our arguments with factual data
Bullshit. When do conservatives ever do that? Conservatives don’t do empiricism, which explains their positions on evolution, climate change, weapons of mass destruction, free-lunch economics, education, and the entire reality based community, right?
This is why you cited a sample size of one and thought you’d made a point. There’s nothing left of conservatism but a dumb cult that can’t get anything right.
.
Err…did you even look at who is listed?
Cuts in specific areas were more than balanced by increases in medical and housing elsewhere. You can’t point to any year in which Veterans Benefits did not see an increase in overall funding.
He didn’t label all Democrats or even most Democrats, just the ones in the room.
Additionally, sympathy means to share or reflect the feelings of another. Which feelings of military personnel were those in the room reflecting?
Hey, man, I support the troops. Any of them need a ride somewhere, just let me know.
And no, I don’t have a yellow magnet on my car.
OT: where do those come from? How does buying a $2 magnet help “support the troops?” The proceeds could be funding AQ for all we know.
Way past time from Broder to retire.
As always,uninformed and leaning to the right.
As I recall there are more Democrats (in Congress) who’ve served than Republicans.
Broder and his class are a good share of the reason we’re in the current bind.
There’s nothing left of conservatism but a dumb cult that can’t get anything right.
Heh. And even their Professional Liars suck!
He didn’t label all Democrats or even most Democrats, just the ones in the room.
And yet, that seems to be what you guys are doing; painting with broad strokes.
Which feelings of military personnel were those in the room reflecting?
He didn’t label all Democrats or even most Democrats, just the ones in the room.
Are you saying that the DNC doesn’t represent Democrats as a whole? That the way he’s representing the representitives of Democrats is not decessarily to connect his statements to Democrats as a whole? Is Semantics seriously the last thing your argument has to stand on here?
Cuts in specific areas were more than balanced by increases in medical and housing elsewhere. You can’t point to any year in which Veterans Benefits did not see an increase in overall funding.
Care to demonstrate your thesis? Just that from what I cited it looks sorta like there was a “cut of $14.6 billion over 10 years in benefits paid through the Veterans Administration.” If its really just redistribution then I’ll admit I may have been mistaken, I didn’t after all conduct the study myself, but if this $14.8-bil is taken from the VA then I’m curious, how else exactly would it be getting to the veterans?
As a member of one of the Philadelphia chapters of Veterans for Peace, I can assure folks here that we vets have met with zero disrepect from anti-war protesters.
Which feelings of military personnel were those in the room reflecting?
Um, the argument is basically about Broder’s ignoring that they agreed with and applauded Gen. Wesley Clark. Rather think it can be said that the room reflected the thoughts of military personnel there.
Oh JWG, you are a pricless moron. You write:
Commenters on your blog give us:
soldiers are children meme – check
Apparently, you did not take pedro’s advice and follow the link to his “primary document.”
As per Sgt. Eddie Jeffers, USA (Iraq):
On your own you guys are just average total idiots. Put you together and your idiocy rises to truly heroic levels.
Look here for the survey results.
The survey showed that a majority (52%) approve of how Bush is performing as president, but a majority DISapprove of how he has run the war (42%).
However, that doesn’t mean they don’t support their mission. A majority think they need MORE troops (51% — twice as many who think they should have fewer). And a majority (50%) think they are likely to succeed in Iraq.
Now tell me, are these the feelings that Broder was lying about when he wrote that the people in the room weren’t sympathetic?
I love the smell of irony in the morning. In December 06 I was arrested on a complaint by an Army Recruiting office in a small strip mall for walking on the sidewalk with a sign “Occupation Breeds Hate” They did this while talking to young desperate young people about joining to fight for our freedoms..Broder and his ilk are asses.
I did not link to it. The statement is wrong. They are adults.
Tell me how many of these people were not adults capable of making their own choices (or even 19 years old)…
http://www.fallensoldier.com/fallen/list_by_name
Ah, yes…
The troops have no alternatives meme – check!
John Kerry thanks you.
“I did not link to it. The statement is wrong. They are adults.”
Are you suggesting that Sgt. Eddie Jeffers, USA (Iraq) doesn’t know what he is talking about, JWG?
John Kerry thanks you.
Baseless claim that Vietnam Vet John Kerry hates the troops in order to derail the subject – Check.
Dick Cheney thanks you.
Just a quick example of Bush Veteran cuts that specifically affect returning Iraq veterans would be the cuts in funding for VA treatment of PTSD along with rule changes making it much more difficult to qualify for treatment.
Hey, you homosexual loving liberals hate America and the Troops. Not like “Old Blood and Guts” JWG and “Notapussy” Jay and me. Heck, liberal wimps actually wanted to let the weapons inspectors do their jobs instead of invading to thwart an imminent threat. We knew that Iraq had a nuclear bomb (and would share it with terrorists) and was linked to 9-11 and so forth. And we found WsMD too, the President said so. Loser liberals think he’s a dumbass coke-addled little Lord Fauntleroy, but “they’re wrong, we found them.”
We’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here (i.e., if we hadn’t invaded Iraq, they would have definitely invaded us).
Liberals actually this was a war of choice led by a deeply incompetend and corrupt administration. Hah. Michael Leedon’s daughter might have a few things to say about that.
Thank goodness stout, strong, earnest fighters like JWG and Jay and I supported and still support the Troops. We know they didn’t die or were injured for an unnecessary vanity war that has only benefited politically linked contractors and Republican donors. Nosiree. We still support sending the Troops over there (even if we stay behind to fight the even tougher blog wars here).
So suck it liberal losers!!!!!!
JWG,
Your link is to the poll taken in 2005 though you appear to recite numbers from the 2006 poll.
You’re lying when you say 51% support more troops. In fact, only 38% support more than the 145,000 currently there. While 39% support 145,000 or fewer.
Most importantly, you fail to note that the Military Times readily acknowledges that its polling method – voluntary submissions from its subscribers – may not yield a representative result as Officers disproportionately respond (and skew the poll in a pro-Bush manner). Indeed, 34% of the respondents have never deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan and only 20% of the respondents have deployed to either theater for more than 12 months.
In terms of the average age of those fighting and dying in Iraq? Yes.
In calling anyone over 18 years old something other than an adult? Yes.
However, it is not patronizing for someone leading people who are younger than he is to refer to them as boys and girls. It is patronizing for those NOT commanding them to call them children.
I didn’t make that claim. His (“botched”) statement was that the troops served because they didn’t have alternatives — exactly what the commenter wrote.
I’m still waiting to hear about those feelings of our troops that everyone here sympathizes with…
More troops?
Iraq success?
Steve Benen (Carpetbagger Report): ‘Dean’ Broder Smears Dems With Vicious Lie
FAIR Media Views
In his newest Washington Post column, David Broder writes that retired Gen. Wesley Clark was “…
I’m still waiting to hear about those feelings of our troops that everyone here sympathizes with…
How about “when can we get the fuck out of this hellhole?”
I certainly sympathize with that.
Do we have a goal in sight that constitutes Iraq success? Or are we still going with the “we’ll know we’ve won when we succeed, and we’ll know we’ve succeeded when we’ve won” philosophy?
“However, it is not patronizing for someone leading people who are younger than he is to refer to them as boys and girls. It is patronizing for those NOT commanding them to call them children.”
Nice dodge, JWG. You truly are a worldclass idiot.
It wasn’t a lie. I incorrectly added too many columns.
You are right. 39% supported more troops.
And 51% support not removing troops. Is this what the Democrats in the room with Wes Clark sympathize with?
I noted it earlier. But since everyone was claiming it said the troops didn’t support their mission I decided to show what it really stated (not counting my initial error).
Reduce troops in Iraq = 26%
Same troop # in Iraq = 13%
More troops in Iraq = 38%
Reduce troops in Afghanistan = 19%
Same troop # in Afghanistan = 15%
More troops in Afghanistan = 39%
Clearly, this survey does not support withdrawal.
With which part do you disagree?
By the way, I couldn’t have dodged your question considering I explicitly stated that I disagreed with his characterization.
Is that reading comprehension problem affecting you again?
You fail to address the problem in that the poll you rely on does not truly reflect the feelings of the troops who are doing the actual fighting.
Awesome job JWG. You totally show’d ‘em.
Keep fighting the America Haters in the Blogosphere so you don’t have to go over There.
You people (OW ditto heads) are sad, sad, sad…..
I DID note that it was an unscientific survey that the MilitaryTimes itself said may not reflect the military as a whole.
When I was criticized for dismissing the survey, I turned around to show that the survey did not claim what those on the Left were trying to say.
I am only “relying” on it to demonstrate that it does not support the Left’s position in ANY way. The Left should avoid using this survey at all costs.
Um, Ed? You don’t know anything about my background, so you just come across as ridiculous.
Feel free to discuss the actual facts anytime, however.
The Left should avoid using this survey at all costs.
No, it should be used in an honest manner. What’s damning about the poll is its drastic downward trends and that the numbers supporting Bush policy and Bush in general are tepid given the responses are coming from “professional career military.”
It’s false, however, to paint it as a reflection of the “troops” as a whole or who are in harms way.
“I explicitly stated that I disagreed with his characterization.”
You said his characterization of US soldiers as boys and girls was wrong but then turned around and said it wasn’t patronizing because he’s commanding those “boys and girls.”
How could his characterization be both wrong, in your view, but not patronizing? If it isn’t patronizing, what’s wrong with it?
That’s a world class troll dodge.
JWG:
I know just enough to know that you support The Troops, unlike the pussy liberals who didn’t even realize just how imperative invading Iraq was. We know the Troops weren’t sent over there by wildly incompetent and corrupt people who’ve never seen active duty. Nosiree.
You know, it’s just like those dumbass liberals, the ones who’ve been saying that “global warming” is real, actually still believe in “science” and “evolution,” and fought for years for things like “civil rights.” But we knew better then, and we know better now, don’t we JWG!
You rock.
Stumbled on this site – first and last time visit -I must say this site gives Jonestown and Grape Favor Aid a run for the money!
You’ve never seen a leader refer to his subordinates in a parental way that would be completely inappropriate for someone outside the group to duplicate?
I can disagree with the usage but understand why it was used. A military leader can view his subordinates as needing his “parental” protection. But if you think the troops want civilians to view them as children, then you’re insane.
Stumbled on this site – first and last time visit
Well, we somehow stumbled along without you before; we’ll have to dig deep and find a way to carry on without you now.
J of Hollywood, we hardly new ye. And we are glad.
They are much higher than the civilian population and especially democrats. It does not support the idea that the troops oppose their mission in Iraq in any way. That’s how it was projected by several commenters.
I seem to recall there were some protesters heckling grieving families at the funerals of some soldiers killed in Iraq. Turns out they were right-wing whackos protesting homosexuals in the military. Yes, right wingers all support the military.
The majority of Americans have concluded that the military mission in Iraq should be ended. Is there a way to do this that would not be labeled “not supporting the troops” by those who disagree with the majority of Americans? No, there is not, because they are simply equating “not supporting the mission” with “not supporting the troops.” If you accept this equation, there is no possible way to end the mission without showing a lack of support for the troops. It is useless to debate the point.
In the real world, we know that soldiers do what they are ordered to do. They have been given wrong and stupid orders that are causing destruction and are not accomplishing anything. We are taking action to change their orders. Part of the action has to be criticizing their wrong and stupid orders. How is this “not supporting the troops?”
Not supporting the troops would be failing to plan their mission using all the information and experts available, starting the mission with fewer soldiers than were needed, allowing military funds to be wasted on corrupt contracts that don’t deliver what the troops need, trying to cut corners with providing proper equipment, making life more bureaucratically difficult for soldiers than it needs to be, trying to reduce their benefits and deny them bonuses, discouraging them from getting psychological help when they need it and sending them on tours of duty for longer and more frequently than military experience indicates is wise. It’s not the Democrats who have been doing that.
If he’d made the same crack about the GOP leadership he’d be much nearer to the truth.
“I can disagree with the usage but understand why it was used.”
Got it. The Sgt.’s characterization was wrong, US soldiers are not children, but it’s still nevertheless okay for him to refer to them as children and then assume that these innocents need protection from the opinions of those opposed to the war.
Wow. Just wow.
Since any rational person would agree with you that this is clearly not true, why is it so hard to believe that the people in that room with Wes Clark might not really sympathize (share or reflect the feelings) with the military?
“why is it so hard to believe that the people in that room with Wes Clark might not really sympathize (share or reflect the feelings) with the military?”
Why is it so hard to believe that they do? Oliver pointed out that Broder’s characterization of the audience as lacking sympathy was inaccurate based on the audience’s actual response, which Oliver was a witness to. You, however, readily reject Oliver’s characterization of the audience and accept Broder’s. Why?
Interesting framing there JWG. Right wingers all support the military— CLEARLY not true. Is that some kind of Freudian slip there?
right wingers all support the military
Since any rational person would agree with you that this is clearly not true, why is it so hard to believe that the people in that room with Wes Clark might not really sympathize (share or reflect the feelings) with the military?
Exactly. Because not all right wingers support the military, it logically follows that not all liberals support the military. Ergo, people in that room don’t support the military. Refute that, America/Troop Haters.
>>I served in the military. And I’m one of those awful nutcase extreme liberals.
And you know what? While I was in, I wasn’t a baby. I didn’t walk around every day constantly afraid that some civilian wasn’t ‘appreciating’ me enough.
I didn’t collapse into morale-busting tears if a politician disagreed with another politician.
I wasn’t sent to Gulf War I, but my fellows were, and you know what? They also didn’t cry if there was an anti-war protest or if some politicians disagreed with the need for a war.
For some reason, those who don’t serve seem to think they have an obligation to see all military service personnel as petulant infants.
They portray our service members as whiny babies who freak out when there’s an argument over politics and policies. NEWS FLASH: OUR TROOPS ARE NOT INFANTS, THEY GREW UP HERE IN THE U.S.A. AND THEY DON’T CRY WHEN POLITICIANS ARGUE OVER POLICY.
Posted by: El Cid | Feb 6, 2007 9:28:01 AM>>
Bears repeating–over and over till fuckwits like Jay and JWG get it.
How many times do I have to say that I think it was wrong???
Understanding why someone says something does not equate to condoning the statement. I clearly stated that I did not condone the statement. I do understand the feelings behind the statement. Just as I understand why Cindy Sheehan refers to the soldiers as children. But I don’t condone it.
Again…reading comprehension is clearly not your friend. Words have meanings. Apply them.
Wow. Just wow.
Also, rational people would come to the conclusion that people in that room are just like the right wing religious whack jobs who heckle military funerals. QED.
Because most of the troops do not want to withdraw. Because most of the troops believe success is possible.
I have asked many times…which military feelings are the people in that room sympathizing with?
No…it was your point made with sarcasm and I agreed. Did you have trouble understanding what I wrote?
You mean like how I keep stating that the troops are not children?
The leftists commenters are the ones throwing a hissy fit because someone claimed they don’t have sympathy for the military.
Again…what feelings about are the people in that room sharing with our troops as they cheer our next potential president?
JWG, okay enough with the mystery. We don’t know your background – just what you spout here.
What are your bonefides on the military expertise issue? What makes your opinion any more noteworthy than the Army Times polls which you so blithly disregarded?
If you are indeed so knowledgeable why are you trolling a site like this and not contributing directly to the War on Terror? Honestly. I wonder if trollers like you wouldn’t be much happier if they were sipping the Kool Aid over at LGF or NewsMax.
For the record, some troops are stupid, most are average, and some smart. But they are a loyal bunch and admirably so. During DS/DS I didn’t give a rat’s ass about public opinion – I was anxious about never seeing my family again. Got through it without scarring – nothing like the damage this president and his veep have done to this once great republic.
So JWG, if you aren’t swayed by the well-intended thoughts expressed on this site – go away. It’s that easy. I have no illusions that any of the sense, facts, or opinions expressed herein will sway your thinking.
Don’t make yourself a troll by coming here only to taunt people.
If you want a serious discussion, don’t look at every issue you engage in as a winner take all contest. You come off as a blowhard ideologue.
Some god-damed traitor said…
And every day, the enemy changes…only now, the enemy is becoming something new. The enemy is transitioning from the Muslim extremists to Americans. The enemy is becoming the very people whom we defend with our lives. And they do not realize it. But in denouncing our actions, denouncing our leaders, denouncing the war we live and fight, they are isolating the military from society…and they are becoming our enemy.
Fascist motherfucker. The American people are your enemy?? You forget, you traitorous piece of shit, that you work for the people of the United States of America. Not your cowardly Dear Leader Bush.
If the people and the people’s representatives are discussing why this war is so fucked and if we should pull out to save more of your dumb asses then you should just be thankful. Instead you call these same American’s your enemy. We live in a representative republic for a reason. One reason is to stop fascists like you in their tracks. You are isolating yourself from our society not the other way around.
Listen up people – this is the voice of fascism. This guy would gladly oppress his own people at the bidding of a tyrant. All Dear Leader Bush has to do is give the word. Support the troops? If this unAmerican prick’s thinking and rhetoric represents the consensus of “the troops,” then not only do I not support them, I think they should be prosecuted for treason or left to rot in that stinking hell hole their Dear Leader lied them into.
Any day you want to try and put your rhetoric into practice you just come find me. This former Marine, who respects and loves his country and the Constitution that makes it possible, isn’t having any more of your fascist bullshit, boy.
I remain interested in the concept that the decision to invade Iraq, approved by Congress (incl Democrats) pretty overwhelmingly, is somehow illegitimate because it was made by people who had not seen active duty. That being so, many of this country’s wars have been equally illegitimate; and the ones in the future will be as well. If you give Kennedy credit for Vietnam, as he deserves, then that’s one; Truman saw active duty so Korea is two.Gulf War I is three. Bosnia and Kosovo, of course, are illegitimate. Question: who of the next crop of democratic presidential candidates has seen action?If they are elected, are they barred from sending troops into action?Or can they only order bombing campaigns from 50,000 feet? I think all this needs to be clarified so that electoral choices can be made with all available info.
I comment here all the time. I haven’t seen your name before.
This is exactly what I was talking about earlier! Thank you for providing another example.
I am no more noteworthy than anyone else here. But I am no chickenhawk as I have discussed in previous posts. Like you, I served including a (noncombat) deployment during Desert Shield/Desert Storm.
I’m certainly keen to know what the mission is.
The only description I’ve heard from the pro-war contingent here and elsewhere is “our mission is to complete our mission”.
doggril,
excellent analogy
How can republicans claim to support the troops when they are the ones sending the troops to their death?
Democrats are wanting to bring them home, stop the continuing slaughter. Its the republicans who are blocking this keeping the troops in harms way.
I see that the Freepers have found this thread.
Their mommies should supervised them better.
focus. whether or not the military supports the effort is only part of the equation. If they are determined to finish the mission that is what we expect! But we as citizens have an obligation to look to the horizon and decide in a truly objective manner whether or not this conflict is for the greater good.
The greater good? The greater fucking good?
Whose good, JW? Haliburton stockholders? Blackwater?
The leftists commenters are the ones throwing a hissy fit because someone claimed they don’t have sympathy for the military.
Gee, another not very bright conservative. Who knew?
One, “hissy fit.” Read outside Free Republic, or even on this thread to see the actual response. Calling it a “hissy fit” just means you’re not confident of your sexual orientation.
Two, someone didn’t “claim we didn’t have sympathy for the military,” David Broder fabricated events to maintain a fantasy world, one that you apparently inhabit.
Eventually, you have to grow up and deal with the real world. Let me know when you do.
.
Because not all right wingers support the military, it logically follows that not all liberals support the military.
No, that doesn’t follow at all. Just because some rightwingers don’t have the guts to admit they were wrong and still advocate spilling American blood for nothing in the middle of nowhere doesn’t mean that anyone on the left has to be so casual with American life.
Just because we weren’t stupid enough to support the war doesn’t mean that we want people to die in it. That makes no sense whatsoever.
For chrissakes it came from David Toader. It may well have come from William Safire, Cal Thomas, Joe Kline, or any other media elitist who survives and thrives on inside access.
The right supports the troops by trying to fight their way out of no win solution while the left supports the troops by wanting to bring them home – safely.
No country that STARTED a war in the last century won it, as they shouldn’t have for thinking might makes right. This is why Bush’s preventive war theory and neo-con ideology are dooming our presence in Iraq to failure. Once you give up the high ground you are left at a tactical disadvantage.
I do find it counterproductive to label JWG and other as “trolls” because they are regulars on this blog.
I am a liberal.
I was and am against the war.
I support the troops in the following ways:
1) I have sent care packages to troops overseas;
2) I have and will continue to lobby my reps to make sure returning vets are welcomed home with top notch medical care for as long as they need it, increased salaries and pensions, and anything they need to transition back – such as a renewed GI Bill, etc.;
3) I have and will continue to lobby for the war to end and for as many to return as quickly as possible.
That is how I construe my personal duty to the soldiers who have fought on our behalf. I don’t agree with the decision to send them there, but we owe our soldiers a debt of gratitude and material support whether in war or peace.
I don’t know why some people refuse to believe that Democrats – in fact, most of the country – support the troops so much that they WANT THEM ALL TO COME HOME SO THEY DON’T DIE.
No, that doesn’t follow at all.
Yes it does. Go back and check the flawless logic. I’m sure that the great General J.C. Christian and those of his ilk would agree.
Maybe WaPo can hand Broder a nice retirement package. Please?
Hey newsflash!
A new poll is in…..
When the troops in Iraq were asked
“Do you want to go home?”
98% said yes!
See, the troops don’t support the president.
Remember, if you really believe the troops are just part of a big shooting gallery over there it is you responsibility to fight for a complete rejection of the request for more funds. Saying “here is more money, but we think it is wrong” is about as hypocritical as it gets…
There is no such thing as nuance and shades of grey in Pedro’s world, except when there are.
See, the troops don’t support the president.
Why do the troops hate the troops?
“Support the ZZZZZzzzz”. Whatever.
The fact is, the grown-ups are in charge now and we are closing this shit down. The troops are coming home. Those of them who wish to disobey their Government and its people are welcome to remain there doing whatever-the-fuck Bush claims he is occupying Iraq indefinitely for. Me no givee fuckee.
Republicans may now commence their usual blubbing into their beers about how they “coulda won if it handn’t been for them hippies spitting on the vets or Jane Fonda or whatever…”
Troll-whine is irrelevant. The American People have spoken.
.
This is what I sent to David Broder:
I guess the point of your 2/6/07 column is point out how left the democratic presidential candidates are when they are speaking to a room of democratic operatives. Is there a distinction between being against the use of military force and being against the Iraq war? I have not heard any progressives demanding that we pull out of Afghanistan. You say that the folk represented by those in this room have little sympathy for the military but the facts don’t match your assertions. The liberals are in favor of increasing the money that goes to aid wounded veterans. The liberals are in favor being the primary contributor to a multinational effort in Afghanistan. While it is true more conservatives have more direct connection with people who served in the military the same is true for our police force. Liberals have a keen understanding and appreciation of the use of military force. We supported force to aid Haiti and Bosnia when conservatives had little sympathy for the role of the military in these conflicts.
You apply the same red baiting tactics used 40 years ago that anyone against a particular war is antiwar and anti-military.
This the whole reason I blog. Being a Lefty, and serving in the military, I know for a fact that Broder is full of shit.
when we leave Irag, and violence surges in Afghanistan (which I thnk it already has, based on the usual news suspects), I just can’t wait to see how long the “progressives” favor leading a multinational force there. That’s ridiculous. Just about the same number of politicians supported going into Afghanistan as into Iraq. The difference is Iraq is larger, and much harder. Of course, we were still in a state of war with Iraq from 1991, complete with shooting at our planes which protected the Kurds. But never mind. I didn’t serve (Nixon killed the draft just as I got my number, and a million joints were lit), and how in hell could I plan a military campaign as well as a “progressive” can? Or anyone else who’s never done it, for that matter.
Among the many tributes to the late Molly Ivins, the comment from one that sticks with me the most was the observation that although Ivins never had any “insider” contact with the Bush administration, her accuracy was 100 percent better than those who did.
I immediately thought of Broder.
Once again into the fray!
Since when does this country decide whether or not we use our military forces by asking the military? It sure didn’t work that way when I served! And anyway, if some soldier wants to stay and fight after we’ve pulled out, he can always follow the example of the CiC and go AWOL.
D.E. Stamate
USN(ret)
Add me to the list of military veterans who know this war is a crime against humanity and the worst strategic decision in American history, made by the absolutely worst human being who could have been chosen as president.
Add me to the list of military veterans who know this war is a crime against humanity and the worst strategic decision in American history, made by the absolutely worst human being who could have been chosen as president.
I will say this once. The Right is lying again. Republicans voting records are out there for public view. Now I ask any Republican and their supporters. Why has every VSO given failing grades on Veterans issues for the last five years to every Republican in office. Again why right now are they sending troops to Iraq without training and equipment. I have seen the Democrats stand tall for Veterans. How do I know I am a Veteran
nyqexzdl pjai wxrmkzqd hzvbwxk sgoyca myhgqa sobycwvha