Daschle says Bush has "Failed Miserably"

Yep, and the Dems are going to pay mightily at the ballot box if the war is a success, which I think it will. Bush 41 might have won re-election in spite of a bad economy if he deposed Saddam. I don't think Bush 43 will make the same mistake.

No, they really don't support the troops. I well remember being in the Kuwaiti desert in 1990-91 before the war started, listening to BBC shortwave reports of anti-war protests in the U.S. and the remarks of Ted Kennedy, Daschle, and the rest. It was demoralizing then, and you can bet it's demoralizing now. That doesn't support the troops in any way, shape, or form. Trust me.

The Kennedys, the Daschles, and the anti-war protesters have every right to speak their opinion, but they can't have it both ways. They can't "support the troops" while they publicly criticize the Commander-in-Chief and the mission the troops have been assigned. Protest and criticize if you must, but don't you dare attempt to play both sides of the fence.


Bruce

 

1. Deposing Saddam will not guarantee Bush reelection in 2004, nor will it endanger Daschle or Kennedy (who can afford to make partisan comments precisely because they're in safe districts), nor will it harm the prospects of more moderate Democrats such as John Edward and Joe Lieberman, who do not actively oppose the war. Whatever one may think of this war, it happened with the approval of a number of Democratic legislators and will be fought by a number of Democratic soldiers.

2. Obviously, I'm in no position to argue with your memory that Daschle and Kennedy's comments were demoralizing on the field; I wasn't there. But it seems safe to assume that if 37% of the U.S. population opposes the war, some of that 37% is reflected in the military--including at least a small percentage of the soldiers who are fighting in it. This is not an all-Republican military.

3. It may be foolish, naive, pretentious, impractical, or even downright wrong to oppose the war--but I can't see how anyone could possibly call it unpatriotic, because democracy is intrinsically self-critical. If we reach the point as a nation where self-criticism is permanently rejected as "unpatriotic," the American experiment will be over. If you get a chance, you might want to read Sen. Fulbright's The Arrogance of Power; regardless of how you may feel about some of his opinions, it is hard to come away from the book with the idea that mindless jingoism is the American way. It is possible to support our troops without dittoheading the Bush administration.

I still have doubts about the war, but now that we're in it, I hope we win quickly, decisively, and with as few casualties (on both sides) as possible; losing another election would be a small price to pay for that, and I'm a little disgusted that conservative commentators have adopted a "well, Democrats, let's hope the war goes badly so you'll win" attitude. If I were a liberal soldier, I think I'd find that pretty demoralizing. It's also an insult to conscientious anti-war protestors, many of whom opposed this war precisely because they were afraid it might get ugly. We liberals are human beings, too.


Peace,

 

No, of course the downfall of Saddam will not guarantee Bush 43 automatic re-election. But, IMO, it will help a damn lot. AFAIK, Senator Lieberman is actually in favor of the war, which mitigates 1 of the 100 reasons I have to never vote for him.

As I've mentioned more than once here, I have no affiliation with any political party (I'm unenrolled). I wasn't too crazy about being activated for the first Persian Gulf War, but I followed the orders given to me by the Commander-in-Chief. So did many partisan people. We had orders, we followed them. Unless you're a traitor, you follow all lawful orders given to you by your superiors, no matter how you feel about them.

Tom, I never said that protesting the war is any of those things. All I'm saying is that if you publicly protest the war, or the decisions of the Commander-in-Chief, then you are demoralizing the troops. I've been there. I've experienced that. You can't have it both ways. I don't think it's too hard to understand.

I'm glad you feel that way. I pray not only for the safety of our troops, but also the innocent civilians that will no doubt be put in harm's way by that madman Saddam.

Well Tom, I spent 9 years total in the military (3 years Army, 6 years Army National Guard). I can honestly say that I have never, ever, during my 9 years in the military, ever met a "liberal soldier". It's an oxymoron like none other.


Bruce

 

After three years NG, and 16 years active, I can say the same thing.

Here's one truth about free speech: It's not without consequence. Everyone does have the right to it, but not everyone understands its ramifications. I think that's the point Bruce is trying to make. Sure, you can say whatever you want about the war, but understand that the soldiers you say you suppport may very well not feel your support.

Nevertheless, they'll support your right to say your piece, even if it hurts them to do so. Such is the nature of service.

 

There it is. When I was in the military, I swore to not only uphold & defend the Constitution of the United States, but to also follow all lawful orders issued by my superiors.

That oath sometimes put me at odds against my political beliefs, but I always held up my end of the bargain. I may not agree with your point of view, but I have risked my life to make sure that you have the right to express that point of view.


Bruce