Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
I was responding to this WB...
Quote:

And I also blame Democrats for saying they "support the troops" while undermining their morale, alleging that they're comparable to "Nazi storm troopers, Soviet Gulags, and the Pol Pot regime", when less than a dozen U.S. soldiers were involved in inappropriate treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and were courtmartialed and jailed for their crimes.
But still, Democrats smear the 150,000 troops who were not convicted, painting a false image to the public, and negatively impacting the morale of our soldiers. And providing soundbytes for Al Jazzeera, and for Al Qaida indoctrination videos.



I don't know if you meant to include that being against the war was being against the troops but this paragraph sounds like your saying that all Dems are talking like the troops are Nazis. That is very untrue & you continually exagerate this. I can understand why somebody would do this as a political [strategy] but let's not confuse that with supporting the troops. When you make these exagerations [you're] the one being divisive & [demoralizing].



Again, it's not an exaggeration.

Democratic leadership saying the U.S. soldiers in Iraq are guilty of killing innocent Iraqis is a widely-voiced sentiment among liberal/Democrats.
They constantly bemoan how "Bush's war" is "blood for oil" that has gained Iraq's oil-wealth at the expense of Iraqis in an unnecessary and unjustifialbe war.

It's a liberal argument that ignores that:
  • We had been fighting an unofficial war with Saddam Hussein almost since the 1991 cease-fire, that we set up Northern and Southern no-fly zones over huge portions of Iraq to keep Saddam's military from slaughtering thousands of Kurds and Shi'ites inside his dominion.
  • That Saddam's forces fired on U.S. planes every day, in a containment policy that cost the U.S. military 2 billion dollars a year.
  • That Saddam also violated, and outright defied, the 1991 U.N. agreement, to continue his pursuit of WMD's, that the David Kay report said he had ready to go into production as soon as U.S. sanctions and inspections would have been lifted.
  • That Saddam also slaughtered roughly 1 million of his people, who are still being unearthed in hundreds of mass graves across Iraq.
  • That Saddam also plotted an assassination attempt on former president Bush (Sr).


All of which give plenty of justification for invasion of Iraq, in sharp contrast to liberal allegations of "blood for oil" that implies the most evil, greedy and self-serving intentions for the invasion.

The war has not gone well so far, granted.

But it is liberals who consistently slander the intentions of our nation for going in, and constantly anticipate failure and the worst intentions among not only those conducting the war from the Bush administration, and not even stopping with the non-partisan career military generals in the Pentagon, but also assume the worst intentions of our soldiers in the field as a whole, with sweeping generalizations.

This is again proven in the example of Abu Ghraib: Less than a dozen soldiers and CIA/civilian interrogators were involved in the harassment and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners. (Who, by the way, were investigated, prosecuted, court-martialed, and imprisoned by the U.S. military, not some outside authority. They were tried by the U.S. military for their improper conduct)
But time and again in these debates over Abu Ghraib, liberals imply (without evidence, beyond pure assumption and their contempt for our military) that these crimes are not limited to a few soldiers taking unauthorized liberties with prisoners, but that repeat over and over that this conduct is rampant among American soldiers in Iraq.

Again: if that's not contempt for our soldiers, and the very effort to fight for democracy in Iraq, I don't know what is.


The quote I've given of U.S. soldiers being comparable to "Nazi storm troopers, Soviet gulags, and the Pol Pot regime..." is, again, quoted from Democrat Senator Dick Durbin, who said this in the weeks after the Abu Ghraib story broke.
Not one Democrat that I saw raised his voice to criticize the remark.

It was the outrage of Republicans who demanded Sen Durbin apologize for the remark, that finally brought Durbin to apologize about 2 weeks later, and then act afterwards like he was misrepresented by Republicans and never actually said what he clearly did say.

And since then, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, have made similarly extreme remarks.

The latest being Harry Reid about two weeks ago, who said We've lost the war".
Not Bush has mismanaged the war.
Not that we need better leadership to win the war.
But that there's no point in continuing to fight, our military is powerless to win in any scenario. We've lost the war, he said.


And that is supportive of our soldiers still fighting in Iraq... how ?

Harry Reid. Leader of the Democrat Senate Majority.
But of course, according to you, M E M, these are isolated remarks, that don't represent the majority of Democrats.




I'm not "being divisive" as you allege, M E M. I'm merely repeating the quoted remarks of Democrats, that have smeared our leadership, smeared our military, smeared our morally just reasons for invasion, since day one.

Exposing divisiveness of the Democrats is not the same thing as being divisive.

  • 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.