Do They Really Support the Troops?
That’s the question I’m pondering after reading Bill Wineke’s column. The column starts off talking about legislation co-sponsored by David Obey, John Murtha and James McGovern that would impose a tax to supposedly pay for the war. Here’s what he said that’s got me thinking:
But Democrats were no more enthusiastic. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., responded by castigating President Bush for asking “no sacrifice from the American people except from our men and women in uniform and their families “and then went on to reassure us she doesn ‘t think a tax hike would be a sufficient “sacrifice.”
In other words, all of us, Democrat and Republican alike, “support the troops” but few of us support them so much we’re willing to give up even one thin dime to pay for their service.
First of all, that’s twisted logic. According to Mr. Wineke’s line of thinking, we aren’t supporting the troops if we aren’t willing to support tax increases. Forgive me if I don’t buy that logic.
Secondly, the notion that Democrats “support the troops” isn’t supported by the facts. Were Democrats supporting the troops when John Murtha tried railroading the Haditha Marines? Were Democrats supporting the troops when Murtha’s Democratic colleagues sat silent instead of censuring him? Was Media Matters, aka the Clinton/Senate War Room supporting the troops when they lied about what Rush said?
It’s time that we started calling Democrats when they demagogue issues. It’s time that we pointed out how morally bankrupt men like John Murtha are. It’s time we tied John Murtha’s lies and David Obey’s initial willingness to ignore House rules about earmarks because he was “too busy” to read through all the earmarks.
Murtha first made his accusations about the Haditha Marines before he’d even gotten briefed on what happened. As I’ve said here many times, Murtha didn’t afford these Marines the presumption of innocence. For the life of me, I can’t think why that’s supporting the troops.
Technorati Tags: David Obey, James McGovern, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Tax Increases, Hillary, Media Matters, Haditha Marines, Constitution, Senate War Room, Military
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
October 8th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Of course the donkeys “support the troops”. That’s why, in the heart of Pelosi-land, the troops were spat upon by those troops- supporters.
And pigs can fly, if you throw them hard and high enough…
October 8th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Thats getting to be quite the science deciphering what the Dems really do believe.
I think they believe in a strong defense for their incumbents, and a fairly strong defense for the country, so long as doesn’t get of hand. I guess to them a strong defense is sort of like wearing a flag on your lapel.
October 9th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
I suppose that the GOP supports the troops, evidenced by 1)conditions at Walter Reed; 2) extending troop deployments from 12 to 15 months; 3) stop-loss orders & recruitment; 4) denial of VA benefits; 5) hanging the troops out to dry with lack of armored vests and vehicles; 6) obscured and juggled figures and reporting on the maimed, wounded and killed; 7) reductions in the budget for handling returning vets service-related injuries and disabilities; 8) paying private contractors at multiples of what we pay US soldiers — even the British pay 100% more; 9) cutting the combat pay and family separation allowance by 60% since 2003 to a measly $100 a month; 10) doing absolutely nothing to help military families, including the 25,000 families that are on food stamps — food stamps for crying out loud! What a disgrace!
And you’re all worried about John Murtha? Can’t you have the intellectual honesty to look at how Bush is merely militaristic and not pro-military? How out of touch are you?
In 1999, Bush the candidate wrote “A volunteer military has only two paths. It can lower its standards to fill its ranks. Or it can inspire the best and brightest to join and stay.” Yet, after having 6 years, mostly with a free hand to spend as much as they wanted, the conditions for the troops remain largely unchanged. The troops don’t even qualify for Bush’s hyped child tax credit… because they make too little! Not only that, but Bush even had the gall to propose that combat pay not count towards eligibility for food stamps in 2005.
No, make no mistake about it. The Bush cabal cares no more about our troops than they did about serving our country in Vietnam. The presnit puts the W in aWol, bested only by five-deferment Dick, flag pin on his lapel and all.
And the idea that, somehow, by Murtha jumping to a conclusion before the facts are in, by MoveOn using a rhyme to make a point, and/or by Democrats calling for an end to the War makes them less patriotic or caring for our troops, is, forgive my language, a crock of shit.
October 10th, 2007 at 6:45 am
Rocky, besides sounding like a moonbat idiot, you really don’t make a lot of sense with some of your stuff, either.
1) I suppose, after all the military-related cuts of the 90’s, Walter Reed in January 2001 was still the shining example of how medical care should be provided. Get a brain, Dude, Reed didn’t fall apart in two years!
2)I believe if some president immediately preceding this president hadn’t hacked the military to the point of nearly requiring life support, maybe there would have been enough troops to “accomplish” the mission and not spend extraordinary time in a war zone.
3)See #2
4)Don’t know who you talk to, but the vets I talk to say it’s like pulling teeth now to get their benefits - as opposed to getting an act of Congress during the previous administration. Not much improvement, but some. All-in-all, it’s been a disgrace since the 60’s.
5)See #2
6)If you get your maim/wound/kill figures from Soros or al Jeera, are they accurate and not skewed? Anyone can make up figures to say whatever they want them to. Let us know when you wish to use figures from some source other than the defeatists.
7)Not familiar with this one
8)Ain’t capitalism great? The military can train its soldiers to do all kinds of things, and then (after their service is complete) they can go get the same job in the private sector at a higher rate of pay! What a concept, since the private contractor doesn’t have to train the employee! Wow!
9)Who controls spending? Oh, that’s right, the President is the one who writes the complete budget and Congress rubber-stamps it. Go back and look at the budget wars, and see who in Congress took what portions of the President’s proposals out or reduced them to cripple the military.
10) I haven’t seen Nancy or any other donkey falling all over themselves demanding increased pay for the military, or to increase on-the-ground protection for them (they scream about the lack but won’t fund the fact), or doing anything else to increase the viability of making the military a career for the average enlistee and/or his family.
Please don’t think I am satisfied with this country’s treatment of the military. It is an honorable profession, but one that has been horribly abused by our “leaders”. Just don’t lay the blame for the abuse at the feet of conservatives or the prez, ’cause there’s plenty of blame to go around, including to me and especially to people like you.
October 10th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Foodstamps for military families unfortunatey, is not a novel ondition. The Congress and the great vacillator himself, Jimmy Carter, a former Navy submarine officer to boot, had us on foodstamps, way back in 1975 and 76.
If your so @%$&# concerned about the military, write your peace loving liberal congressman!
The military those guys love to hate is the same one that vows to keep your ass free to post your nonsense.
October 11th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Well Carlos, let’s indeed get some facts straight. To whit:
To fisk you, then, so much for your points 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5. No, it’s not all Clinton’s fault, and in fact, Clinton deserves much of the credit for the military success we had in Afghanistan and even Iraq. Too bad we didn’t have a military strategist in office… we might have actually won (of course, this would mean that we’d have to have a president who had some mastery of strategery or at least some experience, which neither W for five-deferment Dick have).
Regarding the statistics, there are no reliable or accurate statistics because the Bush cabal decided it would be better not to count the injuries and just barely count deaths, because the media will just report them if they’re counted. And to make it worse, they’re not counting certain deaths (like car and suicide bombings). Stock-in-trade Bush action: don’t like it? Call it something else and then don’t count it. So much for your point #6.
But with regard to funding, I think it is you who need to go back and look at the military budgets and rubber-stamping. After 9/11, Bush asked for a huge increase in military spending, and the Congress gave him more than he asked for. In the last appropriations go-round, they gave him $150 billion without so much as a debate. There is no lack of money… to give to Blackwater, Halliburton, Titan, so on and so forth. But take care of the troops? Ha! (as Chris Matthews would snort).
So much for 7, 8, 9 & 10.
The thing is, you know I’m right about this. The Bush cabal really doesn’t care about the troops, and the most clear proof is that they did not adequately plan and prepare for Iraq. Regardless of your position on the War, this misadventure has been so poorly conceived and conducted that were Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld democrats, they’d be in jail by now.
Finally, TA, I have written my congresswoman — speaker Pelosi, as a matter of fact — as well as both Senators about ending the war and bringing the troops home. You see, I’m worried about what we’re going to do when something bad happens. If nothing else, Katrina showed us that this “government” is incapable of managing even the smallest of crises, let alone another attack or natural disaster. They think of everything as a PR problem, and treat it accordingly.
I’d rather that we treat our military with honor and dignity, and not as the throw-away /protect the oil force that we have for the past 6 years. You see, I value my freedom to post these comments, and appreciate, respect and honor those that have fought and died to protect our rights. Just because I and my compatriots don’t agree with the fascists in charge does not mean that we hate the military.
I wish that we could raise the level of discussion beyond “you hate the troops!” but that would mean that we’d have to acknowledge that there are, in fact, some serious issues left open — if the Bush cabal even sees them — and we’d have to act like adults and make some compromises. The ever-petulant Bush stops grown-up behavior cold all the time, and we all know where that gets us.
October 11th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Answers 1-5: I never said Clinton didn’t spend money. What I said was he cut the MILITARY to the bones, as opposed to spreading taxpayers’ largess on big-time military contractors that just happened to contribute mightily to election war chests. The budgets got rid of a lot of those funny little guys running around in fatigues and uniforms that are spat upon by peace-loving people in California.
#6 is pretty much a moot point. Your sources are no more reliable than what you consider our guvmint stats. Difference is, your sources give hope to the enemy.
#7-10: I suppose giving unbid contracts to Halliburton is a “high crime or misdemeanor,” so let’s put the prez in jail for that. I mean the one that was giving those contracts to Halliburton in the 90s. That’s right, fella, I guess it didn’t become a “high crime or misdemeanor” until after Mr. Clinton left office, right? Because Billy Bub’s causes were holy? And Halliburton wasn’t the only one who received special padding from the Clinton admin., so get off the “there was no criminal president until the evil Bush cabal got there” tired old song and dance.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Carlos, where do you get your information? I haven’t seen any reports of anybody in California spitting on soldiers since the end of the Vietnam war. If you have proof, serve it up… it’s not hard, just post a link to some reputable source (that means Fox Noise is out, sorry). The only examples I can come up with in which a member of the military has been maligned come from the likes of the Swift Boaters, the RNC, OxyRush and Michelle Malkin.
I don’t know why you think I’m relying on al-Jazeera or any other source for accurate information regarding the deaths and injuries in Iraq; my point is that there is no reliable source, period! When the US government surrenders the moral high ground and acts like the terrorists and Pravda, we’ve lost hope, or at least until we can get five-deferment Dick and aWol out of the white house.
Finally, where did I say that there was no criminal president in the WH until W came along? I recall there was Nixon and then Reagan, both of whom committed crimes while in office. Uh-Oh, now I’ve done it… here come the flames!