« Term Limits on February Ballot | Main | Support The Mission »
September 05, 2007
Senator Schumer's Vile Slur
by Tina Grazier
Lower than pond scum...in fact, I couldn't come up with a word despicable enough to describe what this person said today. See the video for yourselves:
Hugh Hewitt and Radio Blogger, report Senator Schumer's vile slur on our troops:
And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting.
Mr. Hewitt provides a switchboard number to call for transfer to his office if you care to express an opinion:
Call the Hill switchboard at 202-225-3121 and ask for his (Senator Schumer's) office and make your sentiments known.
Please be passionate but civil...as would our troops. Make them proud as we continue to fight this political battle in the war here at home. Here's some ammo...also courtesy of Hugh Hewitt and Radio Blogger:
But the detention, or the capture or killing of the number of leaders that we have taken out in recent months, and weeks, actually, and the progress in terms of just clearing areas of them…as you know, Anbar Province has really become quite relatively clear of al Qaeda. Eastern Anbar still has some, and we are working in that area. We have recently cleared Western Baquba, which was almost al Qaeda central, the capitol of the new caliphate that they have tried to establish here in Iraq. So there has been considerable progress against them... -- General Patraeus in July
Operation Lightning Hammer which was conducted by MND-North [Multi-National Division-North], which is headquartered out of Hawaii, the 25th Infantry Division commanded by Major General Randy Mixon. They conducted a 12-day, large scale operation in Diyala to disrupt al Qaeda and other terrorist elements that are operating in the Diyala River Valley. And the operation went into the process of clearing about fifty villages and palm groves. It was a very successful operation, resulted in 26 al Qaeda members being killed, and 37 of them detained, 10 very large weapons caches were taken down in the process of this operation that went on there north and east of Baqubah. -- Major General JamesSimmons, deputy commanding general for Multi-national Forces in Iraq last month
Find Hugh Hewitt and Radio Blogger:
Posted by Post Scripts at September 5, 2007 10:09 PM
Comments
While obviously insulting, this statement also smells of desperation. How sad it must be to have placed yourself in a position where by you are so completely invested in America's defeat, that you can garner no joy from our military successes.
To claim that the current Democratic leadership believes that terrorism is our most pressing threat is to defy all evidence. It is clear that they consider Bush, and conservatives in general a far greater threat to the nation than Islamic fascism. All of their actions point to this reality. They consider defeating Republicans more vital to national security than defeating terrorists.
So is this statement radical? Well only if you are willing to ignore the obvious. Only if you are willing to ignore their statements concerning the war.
Lets say a purely objective individual, with basic knowledge of military tactics and strategy was discovered, this person had no knowledge of politics or political preference. We then ask this person to study the Iraq war and read the statements of various democratic leaders. What conclusion do you think he/she would come to?
I think it would be fairly obvious to this person that although most of them offered their initial support, it is obvious that they have been attempting to undermine the effort from the beginning. You might say to this person,"You dont understand, the only reason these democrats sound defeatist, is because all of the evidence points toward defeat".
To which he/she might reply, even if this is true, why then were they defeatist, when Baghdad fell in a matter of days with minimal loss of life? Why then were they defeatist when the US Military was making the fastest advance in all of military history? Why did they down play the capturing of Saddam Hussein, when this was clearly an important objective of the war? Why did they make pessimistic predictions about how many Iraqi's would vote, and then cast doubt on the election, when their pessimistic predictions proved false?
In short, he/she has arrived at the conclusion that these "democrats" are in favor of a US defeat, not because of how they reacted to US military set backs, but because of how they reacted to their obvious successes.
Posted by: Nick Freitas at September 8, 2007 04:02 PM
I think this was one of Nick's best replies. Totally agree with his conclusions and couldn't really add one more thing.
Posted by: Jack at September 9, 2007 08:39 AM
Nick, Great to "hear" your voice and what a wonderfully first hand meaningful response.
I always have something to add :-)
he/she has arrived at the conclusion that these "democrats" are in favor of a US defeat, not because of how they reacted to US military set backs, but because of how they reacted to their obvious successes.
Brilliant! I would add that there is another side to this leftist "defeatism" coin.
They go out of their way to highlight and sometimes applaud the enemy's advances and attacks. They ignore positive steps, sacrifices, good deeds, respectful dealings and efforts to extend the hand of friendship to Iraqi's and their children. They anticipate good news and set out to undermine it even before it is offered. They pretend their efforts to stop the war are about "peace" or peaceful means. In fact they are aiding and abetting murderous thug types they say they can't abide in favor of and instead of the brave Americans (+ Iraqis and allies) who sacrifice and work to make peace possible by defeating the enemies of peace.
Posted by: Tina at September 9, 2007 02:11 PM
Its good to be back!
Check out Dinesh D'Souza. He makes a very good argument concerning this topic.
Posted by: Nick Freitas at September 9, 2007 07:19 PM