 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
President Bush addresses the troops on the war in Iraq. Sound outrageous? No - but Fox News reports that "some" feel the President shouldn't be discussing "politics" with the GIs:
WASHINGTON — Speeches by President Bush in recent weeks before military audiences about the Iraq war debate have raised questions about partisan issues being brought up in front of U.S. Armed Forces.James Taranto takes it from there, offering a fairly comprehensive round-up of Democratic attacks on the military over the past few days. (And spare me the " we support the troops" line - there's an old saying, "don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining" that applies.) My disgust with the Dems is centered on the fact that as a member of the US Armed Forces, subject to be deployed in harm's way, I want a loyal opposition to the administration - and they've failed in that responsibility. (Has any other American political party leader in history ever declared that the US was destined to lose a war we were involved in?) The approach indicated in this Fox story (they're positioning themselves for the inevitable backlash - see also here for a somewhat sane response) is yet another example of that failure - bash the military until they completely loose faith in you, then bash them for supporting your opposition. For the special "Democratic" touch try to incite a little fear in the electorate; give a mental image of "other" countries (nudge nudge wink wink, you know - "other" countries).
<...>
"This is a very bad sign," said retired Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar, who led Central Command in the early 1990s and is an administration critic. "This is the sort of thing that you find in other countries where the military and political, certain political parties are aligned."
Pathetic.
How bad is it? Read this:
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, increasingly isolated in his own Democratic party because of his strong support for the Iraq war, today called on the White House and congressional leaders to form a special "war cabinet" to provide advice and direction for the war effort.First, three cheers for Senator Lieberman. But consider this: the situation has deteriorated to the point that he has to suggest a new organization that can do what the US Congress was once expected to do in time of war. (By the way, that story is several days old - had you heard about it? As Kathleen Parker notes, the news for weeks now has been Murtha, Murtha, Murtha, Murtha, Murtha, Murtha, (Lieberman), Murtha, Murtha, Murtha.) But before you start thinking there's still hope for them yet - his fellow Dems have already shot the idea down.
<...>
"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years," the senator said. "We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."
<...>
He cited the mood after Bush's speech last week in Annapolis, where the president laid out a war strategy.Instead of reasoned dialogue, Lieberman said, there were angry press conferences questioning the administration's tactics. But look more closely, he said, and "there is broad bipartisan agreement on the goals. There are disagreements about the tactics."
Lieberman cited historic figures like former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and former U.S. Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, whose call for bipartisanship after World War II helped the Allied effort to rebuild Western Europe, and tried to summon their spirit.
"We can't tolerate the kind of division that current exists in our country," the senator said. "Why are we fighting among those who have the same goals?"
And now back to Senator Murtha:
"Very small proportion of the people that are involved in the insurgency are terrorists or how I would interpret them as terrorists."So why are a large majority of their attacks on Iraqi civilians? I mean, with all due respect sir, why the #%$^ are a large majority of their attacks on Iraqi civilians?
BAGHDAD (AP) - A suicide bomber detonated explosives Thursday inside a packed bus bound for a southern Shiite city, killing 32 people and wounding 44, police said. The blast pushed the three-day death toll from suicide attacks in the capital to at least 75.Once more, for effect:Meanwhile, a statement posted on the Internet in the name of the Islamic Army in Iraq claimed to have killed an American hostage.
<...>
The bus attack occurred two days after a pair of suicide attackers wearing explosives belts killed 43 people and wounded more than 70 at Baghdad's police training academy. Most of those dead in the academy and on the bus were believed to be Shiite Muslims. Most of the insurgents are Sunnis.
<...>
At least 1,819 Iraqis have been killed in suicide attacks since the new government took office on April 28, according to a count by The Associated Press.
Speeches by President Bush in recent weeks before military audiences about the Iraq war debate have raised questions about partisan issues being brought up in front of U.S. Armed Forces.Retired generals bashing the administration or tap dancing en masse across the stage at the Democratic National Convention disturb me much more deeply than do the 90% of GIs who support a sitting Commander in Chief. We can make up our own minds - and know when it's raining.
<...>
"This is a very bad sign," said retired Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar, who led Central Command in the early 1990s and is an administration critic. "This is the sort of thing that you find in other countries where the military and political, certain political parties are aligned."
