Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Amigo wrote:

The other problem is they vote for War, then they won't fight it. What to them is supporting the war. Why don't they support the war where it counts. At the Front

Hillary supports the war. Many on the left (perhaps for political purposes) say they support the war. Would you suggest they join up? Or, is it just the right that's not supposed to voice support without joining?

I just got off the phone with Ft. Hood, where the Texas Military Families Foundation is headquartered. They are sponsoring supporters that are going to Crawford and I got a list of supplies they need. (Water, sunscreen, tents, chairs, etc. for those interested).

One can either show up in Crawford with the supplies, or there's an address to make a monetary donation. Since I'm not a member of the military, are you suggesting I'm not allowed to write a check? There are many ways to show support for a cause one believes in. Your rhetoric rings hollow.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I'm sorry but I will never believe you can condemn their leaders, their mission, their purpose, and their process and say you are supporting the troops.

Did you ever have a friend whose boss at work sucked? Did your supporting your friend require your supporting the boss too?

If my actions towards my friends "boss" meant my friend would be harmed, I'd lend my support to my friend, but keep my feelings about my friend's boss to myself.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Lash wrote:
He chose to enlist...twice.

He volunteered for the mission that ended in his death.

He was a quiet, church oriented young man, who loved his country and offered his service to it.

His mother hates this country.

She has no right to speak for him.

And you do?

As far as I can tell, she's not speaking for him but for herself, his mother. What I see happening here, this desire to chip chip chip away at any respect or sympathy there might be for this woman by demonizing her and, while you're at it, attempting to drive a post-mortem wedge between her and her son (as if you could possibly understand her son better than she could) is nothing short of disgusting. It's partisanship at its worst. If you don't like what she has to say, feel free to ignore her. Nothing would silence her faster.

She has no right to speak for him? Who are you to make that judgment?

An American, enjoying my right to freedom of speech. The same as you and everyone here.

I'm expressing my opinion--aren't you all about people expressing their opinions? Anyway, of course, I haven't tried to 'speak for him'. I have read what his father has said about him and his life--and read what his mother has said--and they don't seem to have anything in common.

I don't like what she says, and I won't be silenct aboput it.

Unless you want to be silent about Bush... It's really comical that you are trying to infringe on someone's right to speak.

I guess the Dems are all pretty embarrassed at what she's turned out to be.

0 Replies

Quote:

I guess the Dems are all pretty embarrassed at what she's turned out to be.

probably about equally embarrassed as the repubs are about Bush's invasion of WoMD.

0 Replies

JW writes

Quote:

If my actions towards my friends "boss" meant my friend would be harmed, I'd lend my support to my friend, but keep my feelings about my friend's boss to myself.

That's it in a nutshell, JW--you said it far better than I did. The question is not whether one likes or doesn't like the president, whether one does or does not have rights, or whether something is legal or illegal to do. I acknowledge some really don't like President Bush and to speak out is both legal and within their rights. But those who really do support the troops will not put them at higher risk by saying every damn fool thing that comes into their heads especially when television cameras are rolling.

0 Replies

The amount of the right that support the war and the troops is proving hollow at the recruiting office. So answer my rhetoric. Let the right go to the Front and pull there own trigger or the war is over.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

If my actions towards my friends "boss" meant my friend would be harmed, I'd lend my support to my friend, but keep my feelings about my friend's boss to myself.

What if you believed that it's the boss's behavior that is harming your friend, and that you could change that behavior by speaking up against it?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

JustWonders wrote:
If my actions towards my friends "boss" meant my friend would be harmed, I'd lend my support to my friend, but keep my feelings about my friend's boss to myself.

What if you believed that it's the boss's behavior that is harming your friend, and that you could change that behavior by speaking up against it?

What if the boss was running the company out of business (Arbusto). Would you fire the boss and get a new one or would you say the boss and the business were the same thing and let it go to hell. By the way, the person that called our troops insurgents was in Vietnam I believe.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But how supported would you feel if you believed in your job, but everything you did was criticized, frequently in graphic term, if terrible things were being constantly said of your leaders, and you heard the constant drum beat that you should not be doing your job at all. Especially how would you feel if this was being done in front of your enemy who delighted in every word uttered or written?

Sorry, I hadn't answered your question. As it happens, I served in the German army for 15 months, at a time when most of my friends were extremely critical of the army, and most of them conscientously objected. We had a lot of controversial discussions about my choice, but I never felt betrayed by my friends because of it. Another observation I made while in the army was that my fellow soldiers were just as critical of and frustrated with our commander in chief as I was. It never caused any of us to desert, or conscientously object, or any such thing. I hear the same (criticism of and frustration with the leadership) is true for the soldiers fighting in Iraq. It's a red herring to proclaim that this frustration is the fault of the civilian people criticizing their government.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

Thomas wrote:
JustWonders wrote:
If my actions towards my friends "boss" meant my friend would be harmed, I'd lend my support to my friend, but keep my feelings about my friend's boss to myself.

What if you believed that it's the boss's behavior that is harming your friend, and that you could change that behavior by speaking up against it?
What if the boss was running the company out of business (Arbusto). Would you fire the boss and get a new one or would you say the boss and the business were the same thing and let it go to hell.

There is a third alternative: The boss can be persuaded to change its ways through pressure from public opinion, shareholder activism, and the like. I might well try that route.

0 Replies

Quote:

Republicans relentlessly criticized former President Bill Clinton over his handling of the conflict in Kosovo. Leading the charge was House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, who referred to the allied operation as "the Clinton war," according to the Houston Chronicle on April 20, 1999. Other Republican leaders, the Chronicle reported, took to calling the Kosovo conflict "the Democratic war," and House Speaker Dennis Hastert even referred to U.S. military personnel involved in the NATO operation as "his (Clinton's) forces." According to The Washington Post on April 14, 1999, Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman Larry E. Craig also referred to the operation in Kosovo as the "Clinton-Gore war."

On March 23, 1999, The Washington Post reported, "Republicans again criticized Clinton's Kosovo policy as the Senate opened a debate on whether to demand that any airstrikes must first win congressional approval. 'We're now picking sides in a civil war where the United States' interests are not clear,' Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) said as the debate got underway. 'Before we go bombing sovereign nations, we ought to have a plan.'"

According to The San Jose Mercury News on April 11, 1999, "Republican criticism of President Clinton's leadership in the growing Balkan war intensified" when Representative Heather Wilson observed in the Republican Party's weekly radio address, "Thus far our strategy in Kosovo has failed to achieve our political objectives... The president owes the Congress a complete picture of the situation in the Balkans -- the effect of the bombing, the military and non-military options available, and the risks of each. What is the vital American national interest at stake in the Balkans?" Wilson asked.

According to the Associated Press on April 27, 1999, Republican Senator Bob Smith said, "[T]he US should pull out now rather than get 'bogged down in wars that are not winnable.'" Smith said, "I don't have a lot of confidence in the President in this matter at all." Republican Representative Charles Bass "characterized White House policy as indecisive and confused." Bass said, "The President needs to advise Congress as to what exactly his strategy is."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405030001

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

Thomas wrote:
JustWonders wrote:
If my actions towards my friends "boss" meant my friend would be harmed, I'd lend my support to my friend, but keep my feelings about my friend's boss to myself.

What if you believed that it's the boss's behavior that is harming your friend, and that you could change that behavior by speaking up against it?
What if the boss was running the company out of business (Arbusto). Would you fire the boss and get a new one or would you say the boss and the business were the same thing and let it go to hell. By the way, the person that called our troops insurgents was in Vietnam I believe.

If the boss was responsible for harming the company, my friend probably wouldn't have gone to work there in the first place. That's the problem. My "friends" don't have a problem with the "boss". It's the mealy-mouthed whiners pitching a hissy fit because their choice for "boss" didn't get promoted.

So what if the person that called our troops insurgents was in Vietnam. There are Vietnam vets serving in Iraq who don't see themselves as "insurgents" and don't compare Iraq to the war in Vietnam at all. Matter of fact, they say it couldn't be more different. If he wants to call these men "insurgents", fine. That's his right. But don't tell me he's still supporting those serving. He's not.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I'm expressing my opinion--aren't you all about people expressing their opinions? Anyway, of course, I haven't tried to 'speak for him'. I have read what his father has said about him and his life--and read what his mother has said--and they don't seem to have anything in common.

Yes, I'm all about people expressing their opinions and I'm all about challenging them when I think they're wrong. I'm sure you agree.

Quote:

I don't like what she says, and I won't be silenct aboput it.

You don't have to like what she says, but you also don't get to decide who has the right to speak for a dead soldier you've never laid eyes on.

Quote:

Unless you want to be silent about Bush... It's really comical that you are trying to infringe on someone's right to speak.

It's even more comical that you take a challenge to your opinion as infringement on your right to speak. It's more than comical, actually, it's absurd.

Quote:

I guess the Dems are all pretty embarrassed at what she's turned out to be.

I wouldn't presume to know.

0 Replies

Continuing Blatham's inquiry: Somewhere on the web, I remember reading some historic campaign statements by Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon, both of whom sharply criticized Lyndon Johnsons way of fighting the Vietnam War. Would you say they betrayed the troops too at the time?

0 Replies

Freeduck - Cindy Sheehan presumes to speak for more than just herself. There's a whole caravan traveling from San Francisco to Crawford to set her straight. She doesn't speak for them. She will learn that soon enough.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Republicans relentlessly criticized former President Bill Clinton over his handling of the conflict in Kosovo. Leading the charge was House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, who referred to the allied operation as "the Clinton war," according to the Houston Chronicle on April 20, 1999. Other Republican leaders, the Chronicle reported, took to calling the Kosovo conflict "the Democratic war," and House Speaker Dennis Hastert even referred to U.S. military personnel involved in the NATO operation as "his (Clinton's) forces." According to The Washington Post on April 14, 1999, Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman Larry E. Craig also referred to the operation in Kosovo as the "Clinton-Gore war."

On March 23, 1999, The Washington Post reported, "Republicans again criticized Clinton's Kosovo policy as the Senate opened a debate on whether to demand that any airstrikes must first win congressional approval. 'We're now picking sides in a civil war where the United States' interests are not clear,' Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) said as the debate got underway. 'Before we go bombing sovereign nations, we ought to have a plan.'"

According to The San Jose Mercury News on April 11, 1999, "Republican criticism of President Clinton's leadership in the growing Balkan war intensified" when Representative Heather Wilson observed in the Republican Party's weekly radio address, "Thus far our strategy in Kosovo has failed to achieve our political objectives... The president owes the Congress a complete picture of the situation in the Balkans -- the effect of the bombing, the military and non-military options available, and the risks of each. What is the vital American national interest at stake in the Balkans?" Wilson asked.

According to the Associated Press on April 27, 1999, Republican Senator Bob Smith said, "[T]he US should pull out now rather than get 'bogged down in wars that are not winnable.'" Smith said, "I don't have a lot of confidence in the President in this matter at all." Republican Representative Charles Bass "characterized White House policy as indecisive and confused." Bass said, "The President needs to advise Congress as to what exactly his strategy is."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405030001

Welcome back, Blatham. And quite a find. Close to brilliant.

If any of us would paraphrase those Republicans' statements in the context of the Iraq war, of course, many of the participants in this thread would be all over him for being unpatriotic and not supporting the troops. Very interesting.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Continuing Blatham's inquiry: Somewhere on the web, I remember reading some historic campaign statements by Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon, both of whom sharply criticized Lyndon Johnsons way of fighting the Vietnam War. Would you say they betrayed the troops too at the time?

If it gave the enemy fodder for propaganda, yes.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Lash wrote:
He chose to enlist...twice.

He volunteered for the mission that ended in his death.

He was a quiet, church oriented young man, who loved his country and offered his service to it.

His mother hates this country.

She has no right to speak for him.

And you do?

As far as I can tell, she's not speaking for him but for herself, his mother. What I see happening here, this desire to chip chip chip away at any respect or sympathy there might be for this woman by demonizing her and, while you're at it, attempting to drive a post-mortem wedge between her and her son (as if you could possibly understand her son better than she could) is nothing short of disgusting. It's partisanship at its worst. If you don't like what she has to say, feel free to ignore her. Nothing would silence her faster.

She has no right to speak for him? Who are you to make that judgment?

An American, enjoying my right to freedom of speech. The same as you and everyone here.

I'm expressing my opinion--aren't you all about people expressing their opinions? Anyway, of course, I haven't tried to 'speak for him'. I have read what his father has said about him and his life--and read what his mother has said--and they don't seem to have anything in common.

I don't like what she says, and I won't be silent about it.

Unless you want to be silent about Bush... It's really comical that you are trying to infringe on someone's right to speak.

I guess the Dems are all pretty embarrassed at what she's turned out to be.

I feel free to ignore her, but I choose to discuss her.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Freeduck - Cindy Sheehan presumes to speak for more than just herself. There's a whole caravan traveling from San Francisco to Crawford to set her straight. She doesn't speak for them. She will learn that soon enough.

I really don't care about Cindy Sheehan. I haven't actually ever heard her speak. But I have seen the Republican right wing slime machine in action again and it says a lot more about your nasty side than it does about Cindy Sheehan.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

The amount of the right that support the war and the troops is proving hollow at the recruiting office.

Hmm. The DoD reports exceeding active duty recruitment numbers for June and July, 2005.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know