Democrats in Washington never undermine the soldiers in Iraq with their rhetoric ?!?

Please try to explain away these nuggets from page 2 of the topic, by Dick Durbin and Howard Dean...

Quote:

Wonder Boy said:
Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:

the G-man said:
Here's a crazy idea, MEM.

If the Democrats don't want Republicans to point out that democrats say silly, defeatist, even dangerous, things about the war and the troops....


THEY SHOULD STOP SAYING SUCH THINGS!


So you're all done supporting the troops & want to make some political hay? Good for your party but what do you think that does to troop morale? Wasn't it Bush that said the war on terror could never be won? Guess it's only hurts the troops if a Dem says anything like that.





...It is only through... deliberate distortion that Bush can be made to say, even once a year or so through liberal misrepresentation, what the likes of John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy flatout say, in no uncertain context every single day, that our troops are losing in Iraq.

Not Democrats saying : "We need to change strategy to win in Iraq"
Not Dem's saying: "If we make these changes, we can turn this around."
Not Dem's saying: "Our courageous troops have accomplished x, y, and z, but Bush is holding them back by not doing this..."

No.

Democrats are saying that our troops are comparable to : "Nazi storm troopers, Soviet Gulags, and the Cambodian Pol Pot regime."
( Dem Sen. Dick Durbin)

They are saying there's : "NO WAY we can win in Iraq..."
( Dem Campaign chairman Howard Dean )

And similar statements from Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, etc.
Every single day.



There are days where Kerry and others who have made political careers of softening U.S. defense can actually pull one off with some high-sounding words and appear patriotic in their words.

But you can only cite those examples by glossing over the major thrust of the rhetoric coming out of the Democtat party.

PLEASE NOTE:

Dick Durbin's comments condemn our troops in Iraq, not just the President who sent them there.

Howard Dean's words likewise condemn our troops' ability to win in Iraq under any circumstances, not just the current Bush strategy in Iraq.


That's in addition to all the Democrats' bitter allegations against the President himself:
  • that he knew in advance about 9-11,
  • that invasion in Iraq was about Republican greed to enrich themselves in "blood for oil",
  • that Bush is in Iraq for some petty vendetta to avenge his father (never mind that Bush was an isolationist until 9-11 forced Bush to take on a proactive approach to Islamic terror and other threats to the U.S.)

So in attacking the President in the most vicious way, that alone to me is treasonous and pointless.
Because it just undermines the President's ability to act in the nation's defense, on false charges undermining his credibility worldwide.

And provides vicious propaganda, pre-packaged in liberal America for export to the Middle East, that can be used for recruiting purposes, and to rationalize attacks on U.S. soldiers and civilians.



All so liberals can score some short term points against Bush and the Republicans. In a long-term destructive act against the nation.

  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.