Democrats only support military action where we have no national interest
re "Dems hedging on U.S. troops in Iraq" (Denver Post/NY Times, 8/11/07)
http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_6602932?
[This was run by the Denver Post on their letters web site at:
http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2007/08/14/democrats-war-support/]
Isn't it amazing to see Democrats continue through history only supporting military action under the condition that we have no national security interest at stake? They oppose military action in Iraq except if it's to protect Iraqis from other Iraqis. What about protecting Americans? Isn’t that what our military is for? And then there's John Edwards' wanting to protect other countries from becoming involved in a civil war. Is it my imagination or does the definition of civil war preclude it being international?
From Bosnia to Somalia, Democrats only support using military force for "feel-good" operations and from World War I until now they oppose using the military to defend our national security. (Yes, there are and have been plenty of Republican isolationists as well, but at least they don't argue to use the military in situations where we shouldn’t.)
The Democrats are so afraid of the anti-American fringe of their base that they step all over themselves to avoid having to take a strong position in defense of our nation. Yet they will risk our blood and treasure to defend a Sunni from a Shi’ite or a Bosnian from a Croatian. It is this sort of complete misunderstanding of the proper role of our military that will likely cost them the next presidential election.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Rossputin on 08/16/07 at 02:34:19 am . Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. |
Yours truly
-
Following Obama's Economic Policies
Facebook NetworkedBlogs
XML Feeds
08/27/07 @ 09:07:54 pm
Ok, now we completely disagree. As the Registered Democrat wife of a Career Military man, I take issue with your comments here. Please, no lumping of Democrats allowed.
You state: (Yes, there are and have been plenty of Republican isolationists as well, but at least they don't argue to use the military in situations where we shouldn’t.)
Um, Ross? Osama bin Laden isn't in Iraq. He's probably in Pakistan now, but he was in Afganistan. Iraq didn't attack us. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Republicans don't argue to use the military in situations where we shouldn't???? Does Weapons of Mass Destruction ring a bell?
Being in the military circle so to speak, I support that my husband does exactly as he's expected to do every day. I expect him to follow the President's instructions, even when I completely disagree with that President and every decision he's made over the past 4 and a half years.
But, I expect that he is told the truth before he is sent into war. That's the president's job, that's our country's duty to the men and women who die for it. Lying about the reason for going to war with a country who didn't attack us makes me sick to my stomach.
So, as a Democrat who supports the war in AFGHANISTAN and only AFGHANISTAN, I suppose I would be the exception to your statement: "and from World War I until now they oppose using the military to defend our national security..."
There is that THEY word again. Be careful of your generalizations.
08/27/07 @ 09:18:05 pm
Michele,
I've written so much about this previously that I don't want to spend a lot of time rehashing it.
I don't believe WMD was the real reason we went into Iraq, and it was a big mistake by the administration to sell the war based on WMD.
You should keep in mind that much of the time when I'm talking about "Democrats", I mean those Democrats in positions of political power, and not you.
Iraq may indeed have turned out to be a disaster, but I continue to believe that this adventure was taken on in true belief that it was compellingly, if indirectly, in our national security interest. This is far different from Clinton's involvement in Bosnia or Somalia.
I will stand by my generalization, but agree that more Dems than usual supported going into Afghanistan. I suppose the image of the smoking Twin Towers was compelling even for them.