Democrats contributing to US casualties in Iraq?

[wallie_x]

I never saw the kind of blatant partisan politics that has apparently emerged as revealed in this memo," Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., said on the Senate floor. "It is a disgusting possibility that members of the Senate would try to politicize intelligence, especially at a time of war ... it is reprehensible.

Source: HERE!

By not supporting our troops in a time of war the Democratic leadership can only contribute to the morale problems faced by US troops. It is common knowledge that the left hopes for failure in Iraq. And the only way failure can come is if the cost is too high in human lives. So covertly is the left wishing for more US troops to lose life of limb? I believe so and it's disgusting. They need to put the BS politics away and Support Our Troops!.
Also. CNN (mysteriously) does not have a comparable news article; draw your own conclusions.

[J-Excel]

I'd go a step further. Had there been a unified, bi-partisan commitment with overwhelming worldwide public support to use force if necessary to oust Saddam he may have capitulated. The very people that blindly criticize every aspect of this war could have possibly prevented it had they supported it from the beginning. Their continued criticism may now be leading to it lasting longer than it would otherwise. Congress tried to fight a politically correct war during Vietnam to appease the liberals and look where that got us. How many names on The Wall could have been prevented if the liberals didn’t protest the war and allowed the government to do what it took to win quickly and decisively? Now they want to draw comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq. Well, there’s the only comparison. The liberals are trying to lead us down the same path. Hopefully Bush stays the track, does what it takes to finish the job as quickly as possible, and gets us out of there before the liberals get a real chance of screwing things up.

It’s similar to the liberal policy on welfare causing many people to stay on welfare. They fight for the poor, but then end up keeping them poor in the process. Another example I heard recently of liberalism shooting itself in the foot is the fight against third-world sweatshops. The liberals want them shut down. The problem is, this may be the only source of income for these people. They see it as taking their jobs away. They could end up starving to death because some liberal doesn’t think they should have to work hard. There's liberalism at work for you.

[MTAtech]

OK, I'll bite. I was thinking of ignoring this thread but because it is so easy to refute the contents, I’ll reply.

First, the Democrats don't have to use intelligence information about the Iraq war against President Bush to embarrass him during his 2004 re-election campaign. He’s done that most effectively all by himself. We now know that the although the CIA was quite clear about the lack of an Iraqi nuclear program, the link between Iraq and terrorists and so forth, the Bush admin wanted war and was all too willing to deceive, exaggerate and doctor intelligence to fit their plans to invade Iraq.

Second, of course, the Republicans who favor the war don’t want anyone to challenge their views. But it is disingenuous to say "By not supporting our troops in a time of war the Democratic leadership can only contribute to the moral problems faced by US troops," when Republicans were not bashful about criticizing President Clinton when Clinton sent troops to the Balkans. For that matter, Republicans were not bashful about criticizing President Roosevelt when he committed troops in WWII. The only difference is that Democrats didn't complain about it. They feel it is part of the American way to have differences of opinion. That’s what makes us great.

Third, how, exactly are soldiers put in danger by challenging Bush's policies? It seems to me that airing different policy views brings better policy and that's better for the troops.

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” -- Theodore Roosevelt

CNN probably doesn't have a comparible news article because a Republican Senator bashing the Democrats isn't news. It's a dog bites man story. So what? FOX aired it because it is inflamatory.

[MTAtech]

J, the Vietnam war was a mistake that the U.S. should never had fought. Killing more people wouldn't have made it better it would have just made the mistake worse.

The stated reason for the Vietnam War wa to stop the spread of Communism. So, we should have killed all the Vietnamese to save them from Communism?

[J-Excel]

Actually, I though JFK escalated Vietnam because he wanted a show of force to intimidate Russia after a meeting with Krushchev scared the bajesus out of him. And I didn't say we needed to kill everyone. But the Generals should have been the one's calling the shots, not Congress. Congress made decisions based on public opinion that weren't in the best interest of the war itself. As a result, the war dragged on.

[MTAtech]

By the time JFK died, there were only advisors in Vietnam.
LBJ is the one that escalated it at the advice of McNamara.
What decisions did Congress make that restricted the Generals? Throughout the Nixon Admin more bombs were falling on Vietnam each year than had been dropped in WWII. They were bombing Hanoi and Cambodia. Seems like there weren't any punches held back.

It seems to me that the wars failure was several things.
1) Ill-defined goal.
2) Lack of a clear mission
3) Underestimations of people's resentment of a foreign power

(Sounds familiar)


If we wanted to stop the spread of Comunism there, it would have been cheaper to take the money we spent on destruction and divided it among the people. It probably would have come to around $100,000 per person - enough to make each Vietnamese rich and therefore hostile to Communism.

[sharder8]

Advisors first went into Vietnam during Eisenhower's reign!

But yeah, Democrats are always to blame!

Both Democrat's and Republican's are good at playing the games that cause these things to happen.

Harder

[MTAtech]

However, we are drifting. On the topic of the post, it is completely legitimate to criticize the policy of the president- in war and in peace. Moreover, it is the duty of the Congress to investigate whether a president got us into war based upon cooking the books.

[chinaski]

Can't blame the Dems for anything in Iraq: If the Dems were in power, troops would never have been sent to Iraq, so the body count would be zero.

It would be another thing if Iraq really was a hotbed of terrorism, but before the administration started focusing on Iraq, most people would have cited Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Chechnya, etc, etc, long before they mentioned Iraq.

As for similarities between Iraq and Vietnam: What they chielfy have in common is that there is no victory possible because neither posed an actual threat to the USA. Neither country was ever a threat to America, we could not 'lose' anything to either of them, so what possible 'win' could there be?

It makes me wince to hear the President refer to Iraqis as 'the enemy', when in fact Iraq has never had quarrel with America. It seems to me that with respect to America, every Iraqi is innocent.

Our car bumpers are plastered with 'Support our troops' stickers. The reason: Bercause it's not as obvious as it should be. The troops should have more righteousness on their side than they do. Instead, what they are called to do is much closer to crime than it should be.

[Fagin]

Originally posted by J-Excel
But the Generals should have been the one's calling the shots, not Congress

Thats a strage call j, i thought that is what you guys invaded Iraq for, to stop a Dictator calling the shots, and to install a democracy.

Are you saying that in Iraq we should have democracy - but in the US we can have a Dictatorship.