Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • RSS Feed


  • Tax Hike Wall of Shame























    Right Michigan Multimedia

    MORE...

    Why do they bother.....


    By Wendy Day, Section News
    Posted on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:47:29 AM EST

    Liberals love to talk about how they "oppose the war but support the soldiers".

    As my husband, who was in Iraq in 04-05 and recieved the Broze Star and Purple Heart says, "You can't oppose the war and support the solders. We are the war."

    A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending a Freedom Salute ceremony for a group of soldiers who recently returned from Iraq.

    Speaking at the event was Senator Levin and Congresswoman Kilpatrick. Both of these politicians made sure the crowd knew they were opposed to the war. In fact, Kilpatrick even managed to work in a line about the budget deficit but in the same line promised that the troops would have the supplies they need.

    This wasn't the first time I had heard liberals speaking to military crowds. I don't know why they even bother to show up to these things. They look uncomfortable, make awkward statements and are less than inspiring.

    The only exception to this rule I Governor Granholm, who I have heard on several occasions. While I disagree with just about everything that comes out of her mouth, she seems to sincerly support our military.

    The rest of them, forget it. My husband went to Washington D.C. last month with the group Vets for Freedom. It is a great group that is working to make sure we don't cut and run. When my husband entered Kilpatrick's office, he was handed over to a staffer whose first line was, "Just so you know, the Congresswoman votes in line with Murtha". There was no, "Thank you for your service," or even the lame, "We support the troops but oppose the war."

    Awkward speeches, chilly receptions and cut-and-run policies. Yup, I can feel the love.

    < So much for that particular "distraction" | Mary Mitchell and Louis Farrakhan >
    Display: Sort:
    Wendy Day (none / 0) (#1)
    by triznik on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:39:40 AM EST
    I regret the chilly reception you have received from some elected officials and their staffs. Please be assured that the citizens of this great nation appreciate your husband's brave and honorable service in defense of freedom, and we are grateful for your personal sacrifice as a military spouse.

    • Ditto by Nick, 05/08/2008 10:50:58 AM EST (none / 0)
    The problems with Liberals is... (none / 0) (#3)
    by LookingforReagan on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:12:08 PM EST
    They think everyone in America is as stupid as the people that vote for them. Sen. Lennin for those who care to remember was a signatory of a letter to then President Bubba the Gutless in 1998. In this letter signed by 18 Liberal Democrat Senators, among them Carl "Vladimir" Lennin, demanded that Bubba use every means at his diposal to remove Saddamn Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological and nuclear. Now Lennin and many other gutless traitors in the Traitorcrat party say they were never there. Either little Carl was lying then to help shift the focus from Monica to WMD's or he is lying now. The truth is in the 14 month run up to the war( rush: Liberals term) the WMD's were removed to Syria. Space based assets clearly photographed a constant stream of trucks going both ways to and from Syria to and from Iraq. The weapons were removed and are now in the Bekka Valley being guarded by Hezbollah. Think hard about that. Former members of Saddam's military confirmed the removal.The Russians gave much assistance in this effort and it appears the White House does not want to expose this fact.
    But it is true. If you support the troops you must support the mission and the actions that result. Maybe, just maybe if the Traitorcrats had been onboard from the beginning and had stayed the course the war would be over. But the words of Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Nazi Legosi, John " King of Pork" Murtha and other turncoats have emboldened our enemies and have the blood of American figthing men and women on their filthy hands. The Democrat party in my opinion should be deemed a terrorist organization and it'e leaders arrested for crimes against America and hummanity.

    Opposing the war (none / 0) (#5)
    by HouseStaffer on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:41:10 PM EST
    I also think it is important to note that you can oppose the war without demanding an immediate withdrawal of troops.  I personally opposed the war before we invaded, and I still think it was a mistake to have invaded, but despite these beliefs I think that it is bordering on treasonous to "oppose the war" in the way that today's liberals have.  

    Anyone with moderate intelligence should be able to see that pulling out of Iraq would only make things worse and that we need to see this to the end.

    But that doesn't mean I necessarily support the war, I just think that for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people we need to end these ridiculous protests and unite behind our military.

    Newsflash (none / 0) (#6)
    by NoviDemocrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:42:43 PM EST
    It's always "going to be worse" in Iraq when we remove our troops. The only question is how many more US troops will die and how many more billions (or trillons) we're going to spend there before the Republicons and Joe Lieberman finally admit that they have no definition of "victory" and no exit strategy to safely remove our troops from harms way.
     John McCain might be fine with having US troops in Iraq for 100 years but I don't think most Americans will be.

    NoviDemocrat (none / 0) (#7)
    by triznik on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:59:46 PM EST
    Joe Lieberman is the only Democrat who has any credibility on the Iraq war. You may respectfully disagree with me on the merits of investing American lives and treasure in Iraq, but it is apparent that Iran will attempt to dominate the region as soon as U.S. forces withdraw. Unfortunately, there is no viable exit strategy in the Global War on Terrorism. John McCain recognizes this reality, and I wish he had articulated his position more adeptly so his "100 year" reference could not be cavalierly quoted out of context. The U.S. must engage its enemies wherever they are. Perhaps Afghanistan should have been the first priority, but I hope the voters will recognize that strategic misjudgments by the Clinton and Bush administrations should not drive a reckless foreign policy decision (withdrawal) by the next President.
    By the way, can we agree to a moratorium on use of the term "Republicon?"

    Would somebody ask... (none / 0) (#8)
    by LookingforReagan on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:10:09 PM EST
     Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman what their withdrawal schedule for Japan happens to be. We have been there 63 years since WWII ended. Can we ask Mr. Truman what is the withdrawal plan for Germany as we have been there a like amount of time. And of course what about Korea? We have been there longer then I have been alive. So what is the plan? When are we going to be bringing the troops home from those places? I am still waiting for one of the Liberal Democrats to ask Germany, Japan or Korea, or any other place we have spent money to rebuild after a war to pony up with a few billion to help pay us back for all the treasure and blood we spent to free them and then rebuild not only their infastructure but their economies as well. We have protected much of Europe for all these years after WWII against the threat of Soviet domination. When will we see a little money from those folks. What about the repository of thugs and thieves in New York? You know the Unnecessary Nations. We have funded that den of corruption since it was started.When are other nations that are equal members going to start paying their fair share? Especially the nations that always stand against the interests of the United States. If the Libs think that is a bad idea then why is it okay to demand that Iraq do the same thing in the midst of a war?

    how they show support (none / 0) (#10)
    by goppartyreptile on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:23:59 PM EST
    The left has learned from Vietnam, and now pay lip service to "supporting the troops".

    How does this manifest itself?

    In typical fuzzy thinking, the military is just another group of folks that need help.

    According to them:

    We that have joined the military only did it because we are poor white trash or minorities trapped in the ghetto.

    We didn't have the money to be art majors or study philosophy at a well bred school, so we became the equivalent of serfs to the government to get ahead.

    We are only useful as long as we can be shown to be helpless... the ongoing reports about PTSD, homelessness, "body armor", the VA hospitals, etc.

    We are only useful as long as bogus statistics can be used to portray the military as racist, sexist, etc...

    In essence, the military is useful as a jobs program  for all us yahoos that live between the coasts.  And social experiments.  And as a bludgeon to attack Republicans.

    One thing I'd like to point out, before I really start rambling, is how sick I am of the reports that attack the military and Pentagon for the many, many stupid things that they do...  and blame Bush personally.

    The treatment at VA Hospitals is awful, pulling someone's benefits for not serving their full term (because they got their arm blown off and could'nt fulfill their contract) is despicable, and sending re-enlistment paperwork to deceased soldiers families is horrifying--- but are not new, and didn't begin with this administration.

    I'd like to point out that the Pentagon is just another government agency, and does the same sorts of things that all the others do.  In other words, the Pentagon is a bureaucracy--whose mission, rather than "protecting the environment" or providing assistance, is to kill people.

    And I can't help but laugh watching MSNBC or reading the blogs, as they rail against the administration because of some awful snafu the pentagon did... and then turn around and talk about mandating government health care, or increasing government generally.

    Something there just does not compute.

    Finally, I'd like to point something else out.  I've been around good people, bad people, smart people, dumb people, all kinds of people because of my enlistment.

    And I'd take every one of them over any of these idiots that don't understand us and want to use us to advance their causes.

    I joined because I believe in this country.  I joined because I wanted to do something more than sip lattes and talk about the Nazi influences of Bill Milliken's administration.

    And I still cry when I hear that Lee Greenwood song. Or sing the National Anthem. And I still take a moment to reflect whenever the casualty figures are announced.

    I've known two of those guys that lost their lives over there.  They weren't political pawns.  

    They were good guys doing a job that they wanted to do.  That they loved.

    NoviDemocrat, your right! (none / 0) (#14)
    by LX on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:13:37 AM EST
    The United States of America has been dealing with the pirate ideology of Islam since the First Barbary War 205 years ago resulting in America's first battle on foreign shores. To this day these peoples following the Islamic ideology scribed by a pedophile false Prophet have no agenda of Sharia Law being a peaceful Western society coexistence.

    Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, who later supported Jefferson, were bound to the same liberal constraints that our armed forces are bound to today. President Jefferson had the right logic in dealing with Islam and should've been left unhindered from liberal philosophy so our American soldiers would not be in Iraq today.


    goppartyreptile (none / 0) (#15)
    by triznik on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:14:32 AM EST
    I used to work for Army headquarters at the Pentagon, and I take issue with your statement, to wit: "I'd like to point out that the Pentagon is just another government agency, and does the same sorts of things that all the others do.  In other words, the Pentagon is a bureaucracy--whose mission, rather than "protecting the environment" or providing assistance, is to kill people." The mission of each and every member of the armed services is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Often, the means by which this mission is accomplished is force projection, but not always. I am confident that it is a rare exception to encounter a man or woman in the U.S. military who considers it their mission to "kill people."  

    Military and politics (none / 0) (#16)
    by tenex22 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:44:15 PM EST
    Being a 23 year military vet, I get real tired of hearing "politicians" talk about supporting the troops. First of all, you only hear this when they want to get elected/re-elected or it is the popular thing to do. I joined the military for all the popular reasons, I love my country, uphold and defend the Constitution and so forth. But the larger reason I joined was to have a stable income and be able to support my family. Now, if the politicians are serious about supporting the troops, they will look into the lower ranking people who have to get food stamps to get by or receieve other type of aid. If they meant what they said, those E-2s, 3s and some E-4s wouldn't have to subscibe for public assistance. But the reality is those young kids can't make it with a family at those ranks. So, I would say to all politicians quit using the military for your photo ops or sound bytes, earn your votes with actions that actually help the Military.

    Easy answer (none / 0) (#18)
    by NoviDemocrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:38:32 PM EST
    Republicons will pay attention to the needs of lower ranking military personnel when those people give them the same number of dollars as the big defense contractors do. Until that happens, Republicons will give lip service to the troops while funneling billions to the defense contractors.

    and (none / 0) (#21)
    by goppartyreptile on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:56:18 PM EST
    when I was enlisted, I trained to kill enemy ships, personnel, etc... specifically with Mk 82, 83, and 84 bombs.  Oh, and Harpoon, SLAM, etc...

    But we did sign up to defend the Constitution, so technically the scolding was correct.

    But regardless, the overall point was correct.  The Pentagon is another government agency.  And it proves how screwed up the government is... but that has to be ignored, so the left can:

    1. expand government
    2. beat up on Republicans


    Display: Sort:

    Login

    Make a new account

    Username:
    Password:
    Join the RightMichigan.com Facebook Group HERE!

    Poll

    Is it possible to support the troops but oppose the war?
    Yes
    No

    Votes: 4
    Results | Other Polls

    Related Links

    + Also by Wendy Day
    create account | faq | search