Goddammit
please circulate
Iraq Debate: What Fighting Democrats Would Say
This will be short and sweet. It doesn't take much to see that Democrats are wasting their chance to hammer back on Iraq, and take down the talking points Republicans have been using from the start to generate support for the Iraq war:
-The choice is to stay in Iraq or "cut and run and wait for them to regroup and bring terror back to our shores." ( Dennis Hastert)
-A timeline sends the message to the terrorists that if they persist long enough, they can take over the country.
-If we had left Iraq when the cut-and-runners wanted us to, we wouldn't have killed Zarqawi.
SHARP, CLEAR REBUTTALS:
-It's not cutting and running, it's getting the war on terror BACK ON TRACK, by securing the victory in Afghanistan, focusing on bin Laden, and getting our troops out from the middle of a civil war. Our presence in Iraq is LOSING the war on terror, not winning it.
-We are not fighting terrorists "there" so they won't "regroup" and come to "our shores." We are creating MORE of them by being there, who can then come here. Our moral standing in Afghanistan is unassailable, since they harbored the people who attacked us. Our immoral presence in Iraq negates this and loses the battle for hearts and minds.
-Saying a timeline would encourage the insurgency gets it EXACTLY BACKWARDS. The OCCUPATION encourages the insurgency, not talk about ending it. A timeline sends a message to terrorists that we have the WILL to take the battle to Al Qaeda, attacking cells around the world and recognizing the global nature of the threat. Not wasting resources fighting people who legitimately want us out of their country and away from their oil.
-Who cares if we killed Zarqawi? There is already another Zarqawi in place, and there will be another and another and another for as long as we are in Iraq. Was getting the Iraq bad-guy-of-the-month worth the life of a single one of our troops? Not to me.
-The best way to honor the sacrifices of our troops is for us, safe here at home, to be MANLY enough to acknowledge mistakes and get the war on terror back on track. And whether or not a man has died in vain is for God to decide, not George Jesus Bush.
It's clear the American people are ready to hear these things, if only the "opposition" will articulate what the people are already thinking. Polls show Americans have made the leap to understanding they can support the troops without supporting the mission, which is why this is less prominent in Republican talking points. But Democrats in their mealy-mouthed cowardice, with rare exceptions, are refusing to take it the rest of the way. Understandable. It's not their kids who are dying. Oh yes, guess who just asked us for a timeline? Two key members of the Iraq government, including the Kurd representative.
Am I getting paid 120 grand plus benefits to come up with these points like the politicians who are, and aren't? No, and it isn't rocket science anyway. My reward is not having to see my sons and brothers go to that vile, disgusting war and come back either dead or shells of what they used to be. How vile? One photo they have shown in basic training, according to the Atlantic Monthly, is of what's left of one soldier after a hit from a roadside IED. The article says no part of him across the side of a Humvee is bigger than a cigarette pack. A couple of guys always puke. FOR GOD'S SAKE GET OUR CHILDREN OUT OF THERE!
"You know who wants us to stay in Iraq right now? Al Qaeda wants us there because it recruits people for them. China wants us there. North Korea wants us there. Russia wants us there." --Congressman John Murtha
Iraq Debate: What Fighting Democrats Would Say
This will be short and sweet. It doesn't take much to see that Democrats are wasting their chance to hammer back on Iraq, and take down the talking points Republicans have been using from the start to generate support for the Iraq war:
-The choice is to stay in Iraq or "cut and run and wait for them to regroup and bring terror back to our shores." ( Dennis Hastert)
-A timeline sends the message to the terrorists that if they persist long enough, they can take over the country.
-If we had left Iraq when the cut-and-runners wanted us to, we wouldn't have killed Zarqawi.
SHARP, CLEAR REBUTTALS:
-It's not cutting and running, it's getting the war on terror BACK ON TRACK, by securing the victory in Afghanistan, focusing on bin Laden, and getting our troops out from the middle of a civil war. Our presence in Iraq is LOSING the war on terror, not winning it.
-We are not fighting terrorists "there" so they won't "regroup" and come to "our shores." We are creating MORE of them by being there, who can then come here. Our moral standing in Afghanistan is unassailable, since they harbored the people who attacked us. Our immoral presence in Iraq negates this and loses the battle for hearts and minds.
-Saying a timeline would encourage the insurgency gets it EXACTLY BACKWARDS. The OCCUPATION encourages the insurgency, not talk about ending it. A timeline sends a message to terrorists that we have the WILL to take the battle to Al Qaeda, attacking cells around the world and recognizing the global nature of the threat. Not wasting resources fighting people who legitimately want us out of their country and away from their oil.
-Who cares if we killed Zarqawi? There is already another Zarqawi in place, and there will be another and another and another for as long as we are in Iraq. Was getting the Iraq bad-guy-of-the-month worth the life of a single one of our troops? Not to me.
-The best way to honor the sacrifices of our troops is for us, safe here at home, to be MANLY enough to acknowledge mistakes and get the war on terror back on track. And whether or not a man has died in vain is for God to decide, not George Jesus Bush.
It's clear the American people are ready to hear these things, if only the "opposition" will articulate what the people are already thinking. Polls show Americans have made the leap to understanding they can support the troops without supporting the mission, which is why this is less prominent in Republican talking points. But Democrats in their mealy-mouthed cowardice, with rare exceptions, are refusing to take it the rest of the way. Understandable. It's not their kids who are dying. Oh yes, guess who just asked us for a timeline? Two key members of the Iraq government, including the Kurd representative.
Am I getting paid 120 grand plus benefits to come up with these points like the politicians who are, and aren't? No, and it isn't rocket science anyway. My reward is not having to see my sons and brothers go to that vile, disgusting war and come back either dead or shells of what they used to be. How vile? One photo they have shown in basic training, according to the Atlantic Monthly, is of what's left of one soldier after a hit from a roadside IED. The article says no part of him across the side of a Humvee is bigger than a cigarette pack. A couple of guys always puke. FOR GOD'S SAKE GET OUR CHILDREN OUT OF THERE!
"You know who wants us to stay in Iraq right now? Al Qaeda wants us there because it recruits people for them. China wants us there. North Korea wants us there. Russia wants us there." --Congressman John Murtha
posted by Jobs for Afghans at 1:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home