Five years into the War, Thaddeus is still in denial.
With almost four thousand American dead, including one hundred and seventy four with Michigan ties, Thad still supports George W. Bush's War in Iraq.
Thaddeus is silent on the War, in public at least. He doesn't even mention it on the 'issues' page of his website. No, Thaddeus doesn't want you to know that he supports the War. But he has voted for every single bill funding the war.
He claims to be a fiscal conservative, and yet remains silent on the nine billion dollars we have lost in Iraq, let alone the over half trillion we have spent overall. Thaddeus continues to support the tremendous price in blood and treasure that we have squandered in the Fertile Crescent. He doesn't want you to know that.
End the war, end Thad's time in Washington.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Freedom isn't free my friend and why are you opposed to the war to begin with. Can you substantiate with data what has driven you to oppose Mr McCotter's support of the War in Iraq?
Sean, read your article this am and was impressed with your blog. Good to hear your political perspectives are "mainstream" within your peer group. Keep up the good work! Needless to say, Mr. McCotter needs to be sent home.
Hexmate, just curious, in what way has Iraq impeeded our freedom?
mlowe - Iraq violated the U.N. sanctions placed upon it and Saddam Hussein refused to comply with the agreements he made to conform to those sanctions after his invasion of Kuwait and subsequent defeat during the first Iraq War. It became necessary to take action in order to reconcile the situation and your question is irrelevant in this particular case - e.g., in what way did Korea impede our freedom?
As somebody who lived under a dictator, I can tell it's no fun. If for nothing else, getting rid of Hussein should be enough.
I think nobody likes wars, but there are some necessary ones.
Hi Cristina
Interesting point, especially since I've never had to live under a dictator. But we seem selective in what dictators we will oppose. We've even been known to support a few when it meets our needs (ie Pakistan). Bringing down Hussein was maybe the only good outcome of this mess, but I'm curious if the end result justifies the means. We now have an Iraq that is much more unstable and will require our involvement for years to come. I recently heard that we topped 4,000 US soldiers dead in this cause, and that doesn't include the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's that have lost their life.
I wonder if there would have been better ways to oust Mr. Hussein. The Romanians managed to take care Ceaucecu without us declaring war.
In what better ways do you think this could be handled? Hussein broke a lot of UN resolutions. There was a lot of talking between UN and him, between USA and him. You don't bring down a terorrist by talking to him. He wont't slap his forehead and say:"Yes, you're right, I didn't think that way!"
Ceausescu did not want to attack USA, Saddam did.
Excelletn study done by Harvard University that you anti-war experts should read.
From the “keen sense of the obvious” department at Harvard University, researchers at the Kennedy School of Government reported this week what anyone with a lick of common sense already knew: When Democrats and their Leftmedia instruments of propaganda openly condemn Operation Iraqi Freedom, they embolden our enemy.
The research team determined that the more strident the political dissention of OIF reflected in U.S. media stories or polls (read: “Pollaganda”), the more frequent were attacks against civilians and U.S. military forces in Iraq. Notably, in areas with greater access to international news media, the quantifiable increases were greater.
The report, http://people.rwj.harvard.edu/ riyengar/insurgency.pdf">“Is There an ‘Emboldenment’ Effect? Evidence from the Insurgency in Iraq,”, concludes that attacks increased between seven and ten percent following “high-mention weeks,” like the two before the November 2006 midterm elections, when Leftist political rhetoric was at full steam.
Since the onset of hostilities with Jihadistan, and particularly in the wake of 9/11 and our military response (OEF and OIF), I have written a few pointed essays about how Democrats and their Leftmedia minions lend support to our enemy with political fodder designed to appeal to their Leftist constituency.
Of course, there is a distinction between constructive criticism and traitorous rhetoric, but in time of war one must choose words to express dissent very carefully. In this respect, some notable Democrats have been reckless to the point of treason.
Until the current presidential campaign, the benchmark for spewing anti-American rhetoric against OIF was established by John Kerry, whose ‘04 campaign modus operandi went well beyond thoughtful dissent about OIF. He even poked fun at the competence of our warriors, claiming they were “stuck in Iraq.”
Of course, Kerry had plenty of experience providing aid and comfort to the enemy, beginning with his infamous anti-American activities during the Vietnam War, with his comrade “Hanoi” Jane Fonda.
Who better than General Vo Nguyen Giap, supreme leader of the North Vietnamese Army, to outline how Kerry and the Leftmedia embolden the enemy. In a 1989 interview with CBS, Giap recalled: “We paid a high price [during the Tet offensive] but so did you [Americans]... not only in lives and materiel. Do not forget the war was brought into the living rooms of the American people... The most important result of the Tet offensive was it made you de-escalate the bombing, and it brought you to the negotiation table. It was, therefore, a victory... The war was fought on many fronts. At that time the most important one was American public opinion.” (emphasis added)
In ‘04, Kerry was joined in his efforts to embolden Iraqi insurgents by a cadre of congressional Demo-gogues who continued to spew traitorous rhetoric.
A year ago, I participated in high-level security briefings with CENTCOM and SOCOM commanders, one of whom discussed the topic “Media as Terrain” —how our adversaries use the media as a battleground.
Shortly after that briefing, I penned an essay that pointedly condemned Democrats for aiding and abetting the enemy. In “Memo to the American Media from Sheikh Muhammad al-Zawahiri,” I focused on a most revealing quote: “I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media.” That quote was part of an intercepted and authenticated communiqué from Osama bin Laden’s chief lieutenant to the now-departed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Read that quote again, and let it sink in.
Yet Democrats and their media organs continue to crank out cover stories like “We’re losing” from Newsweek.
Indeed, Islamist leaders must be thrilled by the support they receive from America’s “useful idiots,” those card-carrying apologists for a socialist political and economic agenda—essentially, advocates for Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism.
Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution notes: “Treason against the United States, shall consist in... adhering to [our] enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”
When I raised my hand in preparation to serve my country, the oath I took was to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic... So help me God.”
According to General Giap, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and now researchers at Harvard, there is plenty of evidence that Demo-gogues and their Leftmedia talking heads have provided ample “aid and comfort” to the enemy.
There is already a petition to prosecute John Kerry for treason. Perhaps it is time to add a few more Demos to the list, starting with Kerry’s lapdog, Barack Obama.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Cheap tadacip 25mg tadalis sx Visa/Mastercard/Amex/eCheck didronel Online sumycin Now snoroff Order septilin
Post a Comment