Aid and comfort to the enemy?

wnbubbleboy

Veteran
Aug 21, 2002
944
22
By God Indiana
This is an ugly situation that we are in with Iraq. Now the Dem's are looking for an out. Pat's artical gives a good perspective.

The politics of war & the Patriot Card

by Patrick J. Buchanan
November 15, 2005


Since the indictment of Scooter Libby, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been under relentless assault.

The gravamen of the charge is that Bush, Cheney and the War Party cherry-picked and hyped the intelligence on Iraqi WMDs and Saddam's ties to al-Qaida and 9-11, and spoke of mushroom clouds over U.S. cities based on flimsy evidence and forged documents that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program.

Echoed by anti-Bush media that can smell blood in the water, the Democratic Party is charging that Bush misled, deceived or lied us into war. With polls showing 57 percent of the nation no longer believes Bush to be honest and truthful, the unanswered charges have had a devastating impact.

But Bush has a last card to play, and on Veterans Day, he played it, the ace of trumps in any president's hand: the patriot card.

Speaking in Pennsylvania to the troops, Bush said that pro-war Democrats like John Kerry saw the same intelligence he did and voted to take Saddam down, and that Democrats now accusing him of faking intelligence are undercutting our fighting troops in Iraq.

Translation: Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. We are one step away form the T-word.

With his poll ratings at rock bottom and little to lose, Bush has just escalated the war politics. Democrats who have had it all their way since Cindy Sheehan set up Camp Casey would do well to wonder whether they have not ridden out a little too far into Indian country and are heading for the Little Big Horn where their daddies disappeared long ago.

In the late 1940s, the Party of Truman and FDR was shredded by Nixon, Bill Jenner and Joe McCarthy for having sold out Eastern Europe at Yalta, lost China, and coddled communists and Stalinist spies like Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White. And there was a reason the attacks stuck. They had the ancillary benefit of being true.

The media may have rewritten history to make the Edward R. Murrow Left look like the heroes of the era, but the Democratic Party never recovered from the charge its leaders had groveled to Stalin. JFK knew it, and ran and won the presidency as an anti-communist hawk.

A generation later, Nixon and Agnew charged the Democratic Party with having marched us into Vietnam and then, when the going got tough, of having turned tail, cut and run, and gone over the hill to march with the children against the war into which they had themselves led the United States. Those charges stuck for the same reason: They were true.

Between 1961 and 1969, when America was plunged into Vietnam, Washington was Democratic, from the White House to the Capitol to the pro-war Washington Post. When Nixon arrived in 1969, Democrats started calling it "Nixon's War," but the country knew it was a Democratic war. And when the liberals turned on Nixon, America turned on them and gave him a 49-state landslide. Vietnam was the wheel on which liberalism was broken and the FDR New Deal coalition shattered forever.

Now, Democrats have maneuvered themselves onto the same risky terrain once again.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice took us to war, but Democrats were the happiest of camp followers. And everybody knows it. Daschle, Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Clinton and Schumer all declared Saddam a threat to the Middle East and the United States. All voted in October 2002 to give Bush his blank check to take us to war. Now that the war is dragging on toward its fourth year, now that footage of young men trying to walk with artificial limbs is on nightly TV, now that the morning papers report three or four more American dead every day, they are trying to say they were misled, they were deceived, they were lied to. It's not our fault!

But the truth is they failed America. They handed to Bush the war power the Constitution had given to them. Having enlisted enthusiastically in a "cakewalk" war, national Democrats and Big Media are deserting and applying for conscientious objector status in what now appears an endless war.

Sorry, it is too late for that.

What Bush was saying in Pennsylvania is this: You may accuse me of falsifying intelligence, but you are falsifying history. And you will not get away with it. I am going to fight it out on this line, even if it costs me my presidency. But if I am going down, you are going down with me.

If Iraq is lost to chaos and civil war, and this is a historic defeat and strategic disaster for the United States, Bush is saying, I will charge you with cutting and running, abandoning our troops under fire and losing the Iraq war. No wonder Bill and Hillary seem wary of throwing in with the Cindy Sheehan crowd.
 
I give as much attention to Pat Buchanan as I do Pat Robertson or Lyndon LaRouche.

It does look as if the Republicans are trying to call the Democrats bluff however.

House Republicans sought a showdown Friday with Democrats on a proposal by one of their most senior members to force an end to the U.S. deployment of troops in Iraq.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, offered the resolution demanding a pullout. The GOP-run House was expected to reject it -- and make a prominent statement about where Congress stands on Iraq -- as the chamber scurried toward a Thanksgiving break.

"We'll let the members debate it and then let them vote on it," said Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, the acting majority leader.
Most Republicans oppose Murtha's plan, and even some Democrats have been reluctant to back his position. Republicans were seeking to force Democrats to stand with the respected 30-year congressman or go on the record against his proposal.

Yep, a liberal news media article.

This may be the breathing room that President Bush needs going into the holiday break. Well, at least there will be something to watch after the football this year.
 
OP
wnbubbleboy

wnbubbleboy

Veteran
Aug 21, 2002
944
22
By God Indiana
I give as much attention to Pat Buchanan as I do Pat Robertson or Lyndon LaRouche.

It does look as if the Republicans are trying to call the Democrats bluff however.



Yep, a liberal news media article.

This may be the breathing room that President Bush needs going into the holiday break. Well, at least there will be something to watch after the football this year.

There are ends of the spectrum for each side. Buchanan is far right on the gauge but hits a point every so often.

I read the CNN article and I am tickeled by this comment:

"I won't stand for the swift-boating of Jack Murtha," Sen. John Kerry.

I love the fact Kerry is tying one issue the "swift-boat" incident to his overwelming defeat as if he was destroyed by that ONE issue.

Now he's using this campain debacle on his part as a defense for Mr. Murtha as if he's going to be "rail roaded" by anyone.
 
...

I love the fact Kerry is tying one issue the "swift-boat" incident to his overwelming defeat as if he was destroyed by that ONE issue.

...

This will be the second time I've had to point this out on these boards. 50.7% of the vote does not constitute an “overwhelming†victory nor a “mandateâ€. George Bush won, and is our president. I am an Independent and I voted for Bush.

Do I believe that President Bush deliberately lied to Congress and the American people just to settle daddy’s score? No. Just as I can not believe that he would purposely send Colin Powell to the UN armed with pictures they cut and pasted out of a Jane’s article.

I believe that the Democrats main argument stems from hindsight. We know now, today; that there has been no WMD found in Iraq. What has been forgotten in all of this is the fact that the administration (to include said Congress) wanted to fight the war on terror in somebody else’s backyard, and not ours. As a former soldier I can not believe that a President would knowing throw soldiers into harms way just because daddy can not say Hussein without stuttering. The fact is I can’t say 9-11 without a rise in blood pressure. Regardless of WMD the fight needs to be fought on the enemy’s doorstep, otherwise the red on Santa’s cloths this year may not be cloth dye.

I believe that the information that the President had at that time was faulty and incomplete. Should someone be held accountable for that? YES! One can not expect the President to take a stroll around the Iraqi countryside taking pictures and gathering intelligence. That is why we have the CIA and other covert taskforces. The President had to make a decision based on their findings.

This argument has no foundation until someone steps forward with proof and not hindsight that the intelligence at that time would have been a “show-stopperâ€. For our entire (Red and Blue) political system to be rendered inept by this argument is pointless.

History may prove me wrong, but that would be hindsight. :p
 

sentrido

Veteran
Jan 8, 2004
1,004
0
History has shown that you are wrong, and that NO, the American people including our congress did not see the same evidence that our president saw. I dont really know what his motivation was, maybe its just the result of being surrouded by nothing but necons? Maybe he really thought he was doing the right thing, despite the intelligents that said otherwise? Maybe that data never got to him thru the neocon filter (remember, we still dont know what the pdb's said)?

Look at it this way, the niger issue was attributed to the british for a REASON, cause the CIA woudlnt buy it. Think about that, what evidence would the british have that we didnt? If they had some why wouldnt they share it with the CIA?

Aslo, being a Democrat, I would have voted for the resolution too. I agreed with putting military pressure on Saddam to help grease the wheels of diplomacy, and I saw that it was working.

Saddam is a very bad man who deserves to be destroyed, but with the fact that he had no weapons that could ever threaten us ( as shown by the inspectors, guided by the CIA, before the war ) or any ties at all to AlQueeda, I cant say his removal was worth one US life.
 

sentrido

Veteran
Jan 8, 2004
1,004
0
Also, keep in mind that the polls are where they are thru no effort of the Democrats, but just the slow education of the pulbilc. Most of us on here probably pay close attention to these issues and make our desicaions about how we feel being very informed, but most of the public doesnt. ITs not ignorane or some deficiantcy its just that people are busy. Thats why bullshit talking points work so well, who has time to fact check? But as time goes by, a little news here, a litte article there and people start to know whats going on. So you hit this point where a majority dont agree with the presidents version of events, and by calling the 'democrats' traitors or whatever your calling them traitors. That is risky. That may not change the outcomes of many elections, cause Bush is done and you will see many in the GOP distancing themselves from him like he were a cancer. If I were running for ofice now and was someone who had voted for the resolution, I would simply say that I didint see the same thigns the president saw. I think by 08, you might see that from candidates in both parties.
 
History has shown that you are wrong, and that NO, the American people including our congress did not see the same evidence that our president saw. ...

History has shown us hindsight so far. I have yet to see any documented proof that there was intelligence at that time to hold the request for war. All I have seen/heard so far is one group saying “yes you did†and another group saying “no I didn’tâ€. Did the President have more information than what was shown, of course he did. It comes with the position of power that he holds. Was that information enough to stop us from going into Iraq? I don’t know, and for that matter neither does anyone else. As I stated earlier, to tie down our political system without the facts is pointless and counterproductive to this great nation.

Look at it this way, the niger issue was attributed to the british for a REASON, cause the CIA woudlnt buy it. Think about that, what evidence would the british have that we didnt? If they had some why wouldnt they share it with the CIA?

MI6 has always been considered light-years ahead of the CIA in intelligence gathering. The same can be said for the Israeli’s. The CIA opted for a hands-off approach to intelligence gathering for decades leading up to 9-11. Since then they have tried to reorganize to put more informants on the ground.

Also, keep in mind that the polls are where they are thru no effort of the Democrats, but just the slow education of the pulbilc. Most of us on here probably pay close attention to these issues and make our desicaions about how we feel being very informed, but most of the public doesnt. ITs not ignorane or some deficiantcy its just that people are busy. Thats why bullshit talking points work so well, who has time to fact check?

In this I agree with you. The poll numbers are not from the Democrats doing alone. Polls are something to keep the media happy IMO. As I stated, the whole political system has allowed itself to get derailed. President Bush does need to be blamed for not getting his house in order (Congress). He is the Commander in Chief and wears many hats that say “I’m the bossâ€. His numbers are down due to his lack of strength in this area. Of course this spins off several other issues. Lack of internal progress (health-care, tax/budget, drug policy, education, and the list goes on), and lack of an effective foreign policy are two that can be named up front. These affect every American.

The American voter is in no way stupid, but I think the term to be used would be disenchanted. Most people watch the news, and they see nothing being done but (as one posted stated so well on these boards) circular finger pointing. They see their elected leaders acting no better than their kids during a recess break. After a while people just tune it out, and lose interest. It’s vicious cycle. Congress yells about something, the Media report it because it makes a good story, Congress yells some more because the Media is there and get their faces on TV, the Voter sees the TV, tunes it out, doesn’t show up on election day, and the elected official(s) whom have not done their duty for his/her constituents get re-elected to start the cycle again.


So you hit this point where a majority dont agree with the presidents version of events, and by calling the 'democrats' traitors or whatever your calling them traitors.

The label of traitor should have never been used. It is never wrong to question your government, and the American people have the right to those answers. It is also wrong to accuse without facts, and it is a damn crime to stymie the government of the greatest nation on this earth because of childish bickering.

Now that Congress is headed home for the holidays, they should take this time to read the Preamble of the US Constitution. We the People should expect better from our elected officials. At the end of the day the Congress answers to the President, but the President answers to people of the United States of America.

I am neither Red nor Blue. I am Red, White, and Blue. A Patriot
 

sentrido

Veteran
Jan 8, 2004
1,004
0
Wow! haven't seen one of you here for a long time!

History has shown us hindsight so far. I have yet to see any documented proof that there was intelligence at that time to hold the request for war. ....

I wouldnt consider learning new information now that the Administration knew then "Hindsight".

Sure, and with a GOP controled congress taking its time to look at the issue, It may be a long time till we get the level of "proof" you require. I for one have seen enough to meet my level. Maybe you should look harder.

MI6 has always been considered light-years ahead of the CIA in intelligence gathering....

Sorry, but MI6 didn't have anything more on Niger than the CIA did. Same old blame the CIA argumrnt.

At the end of the day the Congress answers to the President, but the President answers to people of the United States of America....

Actually the congress answers to the American people as a co equal branch of the government. You knew that right? Just cause they have been acting like Bush's #### for the past 4 years and not doing there job doesn't change that.
 
I am neither Red nor Blue. I am Red, White, and Blue. A Patriot
Wow! haven't seen one of you here for a long time!

All I meant by that is I do not wholly fall into the Republicans or Democrats way of thinking. Yes, I am a patriot. I believe that the duly elected government should act for the betterment of the American people. If you think that is what is going on now, then that is your right.

I wouldnt consider learning new information now that the Administration knew then "Hindsight".

Sure, and with a GOP controled congress taking its time to look at the issue, It may be a long time till we get the level of "proof" you require. I for one have seen enough to meet my level. Maybe you should look harder.

Maybe you shouldn’t look so hard. Roswell comes to mind for folks who “know what is whatâ€￾ without proof. If something comes to light at a later date, so be it. It will do no good in the here and now with what faces us as a nation. You can’t impeach a president who has already served two-terms (by the time any evidence; if there is evidence' comes to light).

Your point about a GOP controlled Congress is moot as well. How long did it take to free up the Watergate tapes? That was decades after the fact.

Same old blame the CIA argumrnt.

It’s their job to gather and disseminate intelligence to the President. If he was given faulty or incomplete intelligence, whom would you blame? Even if he withheld intelligence, I do not believe that it was of the severity to stop us from going into Iraq. I still maintain that he made his decision based on faulty intelligence given to him by those responsible for gathering said intelligence.

Actually the congress answers to the American people as a co equal branch of the government. You knew that right? Just cause they have been acting like Bush's #### for the past 4 years and not doing there job doesn't change that.

Yes, the Congress answers to the American people as well. It is the President who has two stamps (Approved or Veto), and that decision should follow the will of the American people. Yes, a Veto can go back to Congress and be passed if need be, and again that should follow the will of the American people.

We could end up going round-and-round on this issue, and I would really rather not. You have your beliefs and views, and I have mine. That is a healthy thing. I do disagree with the way it is being handled by our elected officials and in my eyes that it not a healthy thing. Instead of actively debating the issues that affect America, they have turned it into a Jerry Springer show with the world as the audience. If it comes to light later that the President intentionally misled this nation into war, then I will be at the forefront calling for his head. Until then, find the facts, and keep your fingers on the pulse of America and not at each other. Get the job done that you were elected to do.
 

sentrido

Veteran
Jan 8, 2004
1,004
0
A few Ironies about this thread occur to me, one is that buchannan has been a staunch opposer to the Iraq war, and two, wouldnt it have been nice if the administration had required "documented proof" of WMD, or of the bullshit Iraq-Alqueeda connection?
 
A few Ironies about this thread occur to me, one is that buchannan has been a staunch opposer to the Iraq war, and two, wouldnt it have been nice if the administration had required "documented proof" of WMD, or of the bullshit Iraq-Alqueeda connection?

At the beginning of this post I said Buchanan deserves as much credibility as LaRouche.

This will be the last time I say this however. The government did have documented proof of WMD. Colin Powell went before the UN and pointed at a photo(s), and stated that from the intelligence gathered that these were mobile chemical weapons labs. That is documented. History has shown that intelligence to be false and incorrect to this date. What is also documented is that Hussein used WMD on the Kurds.

I grant you that the Al-Qaeda and Iraq link was not documented (as far as I know), and was added on top of the WMD cause to war. Bin Laden and Hussein didn’t even dance in the same circles from what I gather. That might be an example of those neo-cons you mentioned earlier.

Speaking of ironic: 2002 vote 2005 vote

Can they please get back to work as our elected officials?
 

sentrido

Veteran
Jan 8, 2004
1,004
0
Those photos documented nothing, thier interpritation was based on the known fabricators interigations mentioned in the earlier sited article, whose infromation was disproven by inspectors before the war started. As for the votes sited, for one the congress didnt have the same info as the president, and the president didnt follow the resolution anyway. For the second the terms are just ridiculous, for instance the bill provided no protection for our forces as they leave. To put it bluntly its an unpassable pr stunt. If they are so confident of the results they
should allow Murthas bill for a vote. Being in powells speech is not the same as "documented". If I take a picture from google maps and say its something, is it then documented?
 

Latest posts