The 2 Wars of Iraq (and the videos to prove it)
Sunday, January 8, 2006 at 11:14AM There are two wars being waged in Iraq. One is being fought militarily by the most competent, compassionate, humane, professional and well trained military force in history. The other is being fought by politicians, either disingenuous or ignorant, with an enabling media who seek to undercut the President of the United States, thus damaging the war effort both around the world and in Iraq itself. It is a war of political bombast which errs against soldiers and reality. It is the soldier who bears the weight of his own disbelief that the mission on the ground is grossly misreported and politicized by opponents of the President; yet the success of their mission prevents them from demoralization. It is the soldier who meets an enemy in the streets of Iraq emboldened by the anti-war rhetoric in the States.
Meanwhile, these "peace warriors" in Washington return to their affluent lifestyles of safety and luxury and self-importance… all at the expense of the ones carrying out the mission in Iraq erroneously said by Democrats to be an "unwinnable war". They twist polls and finagle numbers to make their points; the truth need not be an obstacle insurmountable.
A Town Hall meeting on the War in Iraq took place on Saturday, Jan. 7, with Democrat Congressmen Jim Moran and John Murtha in Arlington, VA. It was hosted by Out of Iraq , an anti-war activist group, whose hope, with the help of Congress members, rallies, etc., will bring to an end the war in Iraq. They say of themselves:
"While all of these events will focus on ending the war, many of them will also address Congressman John Conyers’ new resolutions to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney and to create a select committee to investigate and make recommendations on impeachment."
At the Town Hall Meeting , a young former Army Sergeant Mark Seavey, former only because of a medical profile which forced his end of time in service, made this statement to the Congressmen:
"Yes sir my name is Mark Seavey and I just want to thank you for coming up here. Until about a month ago I was Sgt Mark Seavey infantry squad leader, I returned from Afghanistan. My question to you, (applause) …
"Like yourself I dropped out of college two years ago to volunteer to go to Afghanistan, and I went and I came back. If I didn’t have a herniated disk now I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops, three of which have already volunteered to go to Iraq. I keep hearing you say how you talk to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. (applause) The morale of the troops that I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back, despite the hardships they had to endure in Afghanistan.
"And Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just returned from Afghanistan. We never got a letter from you; we never got a visit from you. You didn’t come to our homecoming. The only thing we got from any of our elected officials was one letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That’s reprehensible. I don’t know who you two are talking to but the morale of the troops is very high."
D-Congressman Moran - who is one of the few congressmen supporting Charlie Rangel’s call to restore the draft - responded quickly: "That wasn’t in the form of a question, it was in the form of a statement. But, uhh… let’s go over here." to take the next question. DOH! (hat tip: Michelle Malkin)
Then Vietnam veteran, General Louis Wagner, stepped up to the microphone to deliver a message from the mother of an Iraqi war vet who gave his life for his country and for the mission. After reading a scathing letter addressed to Murtha, Wagner talked about his own experience in Vietnam:
Hello Mr Moran I’m General Wagner. I’m here tonight, I decided to come at 7:30. And I’ll tell you the reason I came at 7:30 is because I want an answer to a letter, to a friend of ours. She wrote this letter to Mr. Murtha, where she pointed out to him that he was causing the insurgents to bring more activity against the soldiers in Iraq, just as the traitors did during the Vietnam war. I was fighting in 1972 with the Vietnamese when people were cavorting with the North Vietnamese.
Her son was killed today.
I got the message at 7:30 tonight, and I’ll tell you, I wasn’t going to waste my time coming here because I knew the trash that was going to be put out. But I’m really mad. Because what is being put out is being used to incite the insurgents to continue this war, just as it incited General Giap to consider the Vietnam war.
He hasn’t answered her letter, Mr Moran, but I want to read a paragraph to you. I think its a little instructive:
"I have faith in our military leaders and believe that they are making the necessary steps to train the Iraqi forces and provide for our eventual withdrawal. I also have faith in our executive branch, that they are taking the necessary steps to help the new Iraqi government to get a democratic style government in place and to give them at least a chance of success. Although mistakes were made in the execution of the war and its aftermath, the goal itself is worthy, and in spite of all the negativity that we are constantly bombarded with I believe that there have been some remarkable successes.
"Although my son would surely" - and this, incidentally, this is the one that was killed today - "would surely prefer to stay home with his wife and four young children" - from 10 to 2, I’m adding that - "he is both a soldier and a scholar, he understands that we are in a vital long term struggle against a dangerous ideology, and he is willing to make the necessary sacrifices to defeat it. It is a difficult struggle and will require patience and fortitude both on and off the battlefield. If we lose our will at home, it makes the task for our soldiers all the more difficult. I believe your comments were irresponsible and are contributing to the loss of national will. If they were made to obtain political advantages I would find that abhorrent and unworthy of a former Marine."
Sir, I’m mad. Because that is happening every day when I read the newspapers. I visit Walter Reed, and talk to the young soldiers with their legs blown off. I know you do too.
I can’t find one in a dozen that don’t believe that they are fighting for a noble cause and are fighting to go back. And I think it’s a disgrace when members of our congress, just as they did in 1975 when they sold out the South Vietnamese, are selling out our soldiers today in Iraq.
To which Congressman Moran replied:
Well… uh… Ge.. General… uh.. uh.. we’re not gonna end… uh… I’ll respond.
But…, um… I.. I do respect your point of view, I know it is widely shared. Uhh… and, um…, and I respect your service in the military.
Uhhh.. I do support the troops, and I do believe that the best way for me to support the troops is to make sure that when they DO go to war, it’s a war that needs to be fought. Uh… I…
At which point GEN Wagner appropriately got up and walked out, leaving the Congressmen and audience to ruminate in their own rhetorical excrement. (hat tip: The Mudville Gazette for the transcript)
There are two wars being fought. One enemy of America seems to know just what it’s doing; the other doesn’t seem to have a clue. If they do, then our domestic enemy is perhaps more diabolical than our foreign. The Democrats justify their damaging rhetoric of defeat and retreatism by declaring themselves truly patriotic (hence, "Peace is Patriotic"). To make that work, the term cannot mean a love for one’s country, but a love of freedom of speech superior to country. Liberals are carving out for themselves a new definition of "patriotism" to mean a loathing of country, a disdain for America and cooperation with her enemies (as evidence by everything from opposition to renewal of the Patriot Act and US Surveillance Program to the verbal embrace of identical anti-war speech from al-Qaeda and terrorist leaders). The cornerstone of this new definition they base on the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, which declares that free speech may not be prohibited, and it is by this that the endless criticism of God and country buttresses in their own minds their "right" to tear down the mission in Iraq, taking down the President and troops with it.
Until this definition of what is patriotic and what is not is rectified, and until the dangerous war of words is stopped, the chasm between the truly patriotic and those who think they are will grow as deep and as painful as that of Vietnam. Our country and our soldiers deserve better.
********************************
(Please take the time to watch both the SGT Mark Seavey Video and the GEN Louis Wagner Video, which were carried by C-Span. They are inspiring.)
Michelle Malkin
Political Teen
Mudville Gazette
Sara Horn
Righting America
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/346667
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (50)
The anti-war folks are saying the same basic things and are considered, by themselves, to be patriots.
Am I the only one who sees a problem with our word definitions here?
AMY -
Yeah, this kind of stuff really gets me steamed! And the more I hear from Murtha, the less I remember the props I gave him for his own service. Tragically, it is possible to do great things as a younger man, only to overshadow them with folly as a dotard!
I’d also like to point out that the Iraq terrorists were first termed “insurgents” by the MSM closely followed by the Dems. It soon became PC to refer to the Iraq terrorists as “insurgents”. There are quite likely some real “insurgents” in Iraq who strike at military and government targets, but the ones who strike at unarmed civilians at Mosques, markets and schools are terrorists with a capital T. If it looks like a duck…
I leave you with a quote from a by-gone era; uttered by Colonel Bui Tin (who was the Chief of Staff to General Vo Nguyen Giap, Commander of the North Vietnamese forces), “Through dissent and protest [America] lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.” This is the exact strategy that Murtha, et al, are engaged in today. Will we allow them to steal America’s ability to mobilize a will to win?
Thanks for the brilliant input, LK! Sort of proved my point about the ignorance of the enemy.
And Ruth is NOT a housewife. She's a mother, military wife and teacher (history mostly). She's one of the most impressive people there are. Also, Ruth USED to be a liberal. She lived life and realized liberalism didn't liberate......and became a Conservative.
Your whole comment is one undeserved insult directed at Ruth but intended for the larger audience. Your only accomplishment is to solidify the fact that liberals are not the compassionate fighters for the underdog that they portray themselves to be. Your vitriolic energy would be better spent trying to make your party viable again by infusing something other than deranged hatred of conservatives and apparently the military.
Some questions for you; how many years have you spent wearing the uniform of our nation’s defenders? How many years have you spent away from your wife and children in hostile lands? Just what is your personal contribution to the well being of our nation (hatred does not count)?
How about getting over being stuck on stupid and start giving compassionate support to the service men & women and their families who guarantee the very freedom to speak; the freedom you seem bent on abusing?
Rules of Engagement
These are the basic rules for this blog:
-No profanity
-No obscenity
-No condescending comments.
I'm not apologising for or backing smellsliketuna's comment, but he or she is not the only one. I see two further infractions, one by the site owner and one by old soldier.
I believe I also see a further (unwritten) rule in operation on this website:
- anyone with a view that doesn't fit in with the views of the site owner may be subjected to personal abuse and unwarranted assumptions about politican moral and religious beliefs.
Am I correct in my beliefs?
How many times have Liberals brought up made up stories to win favor or an argument? I could start with Kerry and his bogus "Christmas in Cambodia" story that was a complete lie, but liberals don't care for the truth. They can't tell it and fight it at all costs.
The only condescension here came from anonymous posters. The name, “smellsliketuna” cries out for some modification. If I called myself “stinkslikeaskunk” I’m sure someone would make fun of it because that would be stupid.
So Mullah, make an honest man of yourself if you want to quote the rules. And no, I haven’t infringed upon any, although you certainly have.
Old Soldier’s comments are very poignant. I think your questions to “smellin’ “ are excellent.
The anonymous posters here are from Canada. The Mohammad one resolves to another country and is the IP of an anonymizer. Americans are usually prouder to identify themselves publicly, I guess Canadians are not?
As for the “additional rule” invented by Mr. Mohammad,
“- anyone with a view that doesn't fit in with the views of the site owner may be subjected to personal abuse and unwarranted assumptions about politican moral and religious beliefs.”
Nice try. Personal abuse? If a liberal wants to show up on a conservative site, they should expect that their ridiculous arguments would be challenged. If a liberal wants to go the extra mile and be a jerk on a conservative site, all the more reason to assume about their political, moral and religious beliefs. Stereotypes exist for a reason: because people do often exist in generalities and when one posts anonymously for the purpose of exalting himself and putting down everyone else, the stereotype they fit is that of a liberal.
It was smelly who drew uwarranted and baseless assumptions about Ruth: that she is a housewife (she's a professional, but what's wrong with being a housewife? Gee, could there be a note of condescending there?), that she believes what she does because her husband is a soldier (she was liberal until she saw the error of her ways), etc. It is not the conservatives here who are guilty of the new cute rule you made up, Mo.
Don’t you think, under the circumstances, that it’s a bit thin-skinned to talk about “personal abuse” by the owner while not holding accountable yourself and other offenders for posting anonymously?
Personally, some of the best dialogue on this site is when people dissent, but do so in a non-threatening manner. I’ve even been known to change my mind occasionally as a result. But if you look back over the anonymous posts you’ll see who the real offenders are, even trying to insult through their fake screen names, criticizing other countries rather than their own.
Regards,
Amy and Ruth, my prayers are with your husbands and your families. God bless you all for taking up where my family and I left off. God bless you all.
I regret I cannot find the rule which says that anonymous posting is not permitted, so I am currently unable to remove log from eye. In truth, is it not so that apart from your esteemed self, everyone in this thread is anonymous to a greater or lesser degree?
I am not rich enough to purchase my own IP address, but surely it is rude and abusive to suggest I am being dishonest or hiding something because of this.
I do not know what this "anonymizer" is that you speak of. My IP registration entry gives contact details for any complaints you might have about my behaviour. Please, therefore, what more personal details do you need and what would you do with them if I gave them to you? I understand you are a legal expert, perhaps you can you tell me, are there not rules regarding the gathering and storage of personal information, particularly when it may lead to the cross-referencing of "M" for Mohammed with "L" for liberal.
Now, these other matters. I do not want to be your mother, but the words "jerk" and "crap", these are insulting words for masturbation and for faeces, no? Name-calling, is that not insulting and abusive behaviour. Please, I do not yet understand, is it permitted to be rude and insulting so long as somebody else started it?
I must say I was surprised and delighted to to discover that I am a liberal. Thank you, old solder, for enlightening me. Regrettably I must point out that I do not know what the word 'liberal' means. If I were to guess from the context, it would appear to mean "person of unknown name and origin who disagrees with site owner and friends", but perhaps I am wrong.
I await my further education with interest.
Thanks.
PCD, thank you once again for your most valuable comment, though I must politely point out that you are being insulting to me for no reason that I can understand. may I also humbly suggest that you switch on your spell checker for ease of others.
Mullah Liberal, you and smellslikeKrap do insult the rest of the people here and insult their intelligence. You should appologize to us.
Rules of engagement:
"Anonymous comments may be accepted under certain circumstances, but if you wish to comment, please leave name, URL and/or e-mail. This is for security purposes only."
To reiterate, "if you wish to comment, please leave name, URL and/or e-mail. This is for security purposes only."
That means, no anonymous posting.
Perhaps it's just internet manners, but when there are areas for name, e-mail and URL, it's right to enter. People, in general, who blog leave some sort of accountability trail. I have enough experience with the worst sort of trolls to have authority to say that usually those who post no e-mail or anything usually WANT to be untraceable for a reason. I'm not calling anyone (but the dude who likes referring to himself as "smelly" this or that) of being a liar.
And of course, statements like "I understand you are a legal expert, perhaps you can you tell me, are there not rules regarding the gathering and storage of personal information, particularly when it may lead to the cross-referencing of "M" for Mohammed with "L" for liberal." show that you really are disingenous. That's right; I'm wire tapping for Pres. Bush. He wants to know what color your undies are.
You might consider writing to "Daily Kos" and ask them why they require registration on their site.
That's the end of that, Mohammad.
No Anonymous posting. All further anonymous posts will be deleted.
I see you have been deleting the smells (de-odorizing, eh?)...
Good for you! Had to do it at my own site when a "West Coast Liberal" showed up. (Although I somehow think he was from the West Coast of England, Ireland, Scotland, Australia or New Zealand).
Don't you just HATE troll droppings.... they're so smelly!
Regards...
Luther King was one of the Communists from Canada who've been trolling me for over a year. I should post the hate mail I've gotten from them. At one time on my previous blog, they posted stupid statements of hate and vitriol and then demanded I take them down. When I didn't, they actually pretended to be one of the lawyers from their university in Canada, pretending to represent them! We contacted the lawyer, to their embarrassment, who denied representing them.
Then one apparently was engaged and also a bit "too friendly" with a prostitute in Canada (who has a journal on Bravenet) and because of their harrassing me and some on-line friends, the fiance found out about the prostitute because she posted on the Commie's journal! This is the kind of people trolls are. They are morally bankrupt and socially immature.
Smells was also from Canada. I find it sad that Canadians are so hostile to America, but that's another issue. I find it even sadder that there are so many mean-spirited people in the world. I keep hoping it's just one or two people but it turns out there are more than I had originally anticipated, which is truly sad.
HMMMMM Let's see, They BOTH
are misguided
hate the president
hate the military
think they are right despite evidence to the contrary
manipulate the media to their end
criticise the American way of life
distort the truth
cause innocent people and soldiers to die
rejoice in American defeat
wrongly believe their efforts will defeat America
Smell bad
GEEEE I'm stumped.