In an article titled, Clinton and Obama on the Same Page as MoveOn.org (Human Events Online),
Jed Babbin made the following observations:
In a Dec. 9, 2004 e-mail to supporters,
MoveOn.org leaders Eli Pariser and Justin Ruben
wrote, “In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than
$300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party
doesn’t need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it’s our Party:
we bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back…The
Sept. 10 full-page MoveOn.org ad in the New York Times -- and the Dems’ reaction to it -- apparently proved the
point.”
The MoveOn.Org
Newspaper AD
Appearing on the first day of Gen. David Petraeus’ congressional testimony, the MoveOn ad featured a half-page picture of Petraeus above the headline, “General Petraeus or Betray Us?” It said, “General Petraeus is a military man consistently at war with the
facts…Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.” (Emphasis mine).
What we have not heard is the Democrats or
their leaders, including their presidential candidates, disavowing this
offensive ad or MoveOn.org for placing it.
Estimates indicate that the extreme Left
represents about one-third of the Democrat Party. If so, it means that at least
one-third of those who profess to be Democrats do not support the troops.
What About the Other
Two-Thirds?
To find the answer, we only have to consider
some of the comments that have been made about the Iraq War by some of the key
leaders of the Democrat party.
What Democrat Leaders Have Said
Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.): In a statement that was made before the “surge” was
actually launched, Senator Reid said, “I believe ... that this war is
lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme
violence in
Comment:
How is it possible to “support the troops” while declaring their
mission is a defeat before it starts? - HRS
House Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.): Nancy Pelosi told Fox News…that
Question:
If the “situation” in
“An apparently botched message during a
widely discouraged visit by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to
Comment:
By attempting to deal directly with a terrorist state that is facilitating the
efforts of the very people who are killing Americans in Iraq, Ms. Pelosi is
indirectly giving aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime, an act that
would have been considered treasonous in an earlier era.. Surely, that cannot be viewed as
“supporting the troops.” - HRS
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.): “Well,
that’s the difficulty. A resolution that says we’re against this
escalation, that’s easy. The next step will be how do you put further
pressure on the administration against the escalation but still supporting the
troops who are there? And that’s what we’re figuring out right
now.” (Jan. 26, 2007: Chuck Schumer on “The Today
Show”).
Question: How
is it possible to “support the troops” while attempting to
interfere with their mission? - HRS
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.): “Now,
I’m not saying he’s a traitor. I am saying he [Kennedy] made an
outrageous and shameful charge that puts politics above the safety of our
troops, success in Iraq, and national security….First, let’s be
clear. Kennedy wasn’t offering sober military analysis. He didn’t
attempt to explain how
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) - told General Petraeus, “You have been made the de facto spokesmen
for what many of us believe to be a failed policy. Despite
what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony... I
think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing
suspension of disbelief.”
Comment: In
other words, she accused him of lying before even hearing his testimony. - HRS
Sen. John Kerry (D-Pa.): John Kerry spoke to
students and revealed what he really thinks of
Comment: That’ll
really boost troop morale. Tell us again why Americans should entrust Democrats
with national defense?
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH, candidate for
President): “After praising
Comment:
This doesn’t sound like “supporting the troops” to me. - HRS
The Enemy Takes Advantage of Everything We
Say
In an article titled, “The Enemy is
Watching” on Political Maven.com, Arnold Ahlert
observed: “The Democrat Party has an incredible blind spot when
one considers the level of modern communication, and
its primary, undeniable reality: whatever you say or do, THE ENEMY IS
WATCHING….And what does the enemy see? A political party dedicated to the
idea of allowing al Qaeda to emerge as the dominant force in
A
party willing to characterize the outcome of our military efforts as
“already lost,” and reports of their recent successes to require a
“willing suspension of disbelief….It is impossible to measure the
effects of such statements on enemy morale or their efforts get new recruits
for their murderous cause. (Emphasis mine)…But it doesn’t take
a genius to figure out that every time some witless Democrat expresses his or
her surrenderism, it goes global: to Al Jazeera, militant websites and oppressive regimes in every
corner of the world. It becomes an integral part of terrorist propaganda, the
chief component of which is the idea that
Comment:
Surely this can’t be interpreted as “supporting the troops.”
- HRS
The Entertainment Industry
Then we have the entertainment industry,
which is largely Democratic and presumes to speak for the public. Members of
this elite group hold forth in films and just about every chance they get to
make their personal views known at awards shows, concerts, on talk shows or any
venue that puts a microphone in their hands. They seem to think they speak for
everyone and, although they may not be a large group numerically, this rabidly
Liberal crowd clearly does not speak for all Americans and does not
“support the troops.”
It seems abundantly clear to me that the
Democrats do not “support the troops” in spite of all their
protestations to the contrary. And, unfortunately, during times of conflict,
partisan politics no longer stops at the water’s edge.
© 2007 Harris R. Sherline,
All Rights Reserved