LA Times latest to suggest proponents of Iraq withdrawal are anti-military
In a January 28 editorial headlined "How Iraq affects D.C. reputations," the Los Angeles Times claimed that Sen. John Warner's (R-VA) assertion "that Congress would have to make 'bold decisions' if the Iraqi government didn't shape up within three months" was surprising "[b]ecause of Warner's long-reliable pro-military vote and support for Bush's foreign policy." In suggesting that Warner's "pro-military" views were inconsistent with asserting that the Iraqi government must "shape up" or face Congress' "bold decisions," the Times joined other news organizations identified by Media Matters for America (here, here, and here) as equating being "pro-military" and supporting the troops with supporting the war in Iraq. Such a suggestion implies that those who advocate withdrawal from Iraq are not "pro-military" and do not support the troops.
From the January 28 edition of the Los Angeles Times:
Although [Sen. Richard] Lugar [R-IN] had previously enjoyed a reputation as one of the Senate's brightest, the courtly Warner has not radiated the same glow. As chairman of the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee, Warner was seen as the military's chief champion on Capitol Hill, stern in his defense of both military budgets and martial honor.
Because of Warner's long-reliable pro-military vote and support for Bush's foreign policy, it came as a shock to the body politic when the former Navy secretary returned from a trip to Iraq last October and declared bluntly that Congress would have to make "bold decisions" if the Iraqi government didn't shape up within three months. Warner's reversal made it kosher for Republicans to distance themselves from the president's war during the midterm elections. Three months later, the senator has introduced a resolution opposing Bush's troop escalation.
Warner may not win any lifetime achievement awards from foreign policy observers, but his defiance may go down as a tipping point in the war. Lugar's stellar reputation, on the other hand, only makes the fallout from his Hamlet-like indecision about Iraq worse. Fair? No. But that's war.
So throwing more troops into the meat grinder for Bush's political purposes is "pro-military", but opening up your eyes and bearing witness to the upheaval and chaos in Iraq is "anti-military".
I think someone's parents took the brown acid at Woodstock.
Yes, Grossadmiral Doenitz, who surrendered to the Allies was such a Woossie, too. He should have kept fighting until the Russians were in his office in Flensburg and shot him. Not 'try to protect the people' or something lame like that.
I know, extreme comparison. But somewhere I have a point.
"Warner was seen as the military's chief champion on Capitol Hil..."
"...came as a shock to the body politic when the former Navy secretary returned from a trip to Iraq last October and..."
Hmmmm... did the LA Times ever consider that maybe they're not connecting the dots correctly here? Let's see... Warner is a hard-core defender of the military. He takes a trip to Iraq and comes back anti-military? Or is it more plausible that because Warner has been such a aupporter of the military that he has the trust and confidence of military leaders... and that it was the military leaders who told him how badly Rumsfeld and Bush have screwed up the entire Iraq affair? That would appear to me to be the real story here... not whether John Warner can be called anything but pro-military. He's earned that reputation.
Let's remove every evil dictator in the world, right now. Anyone who disagrees is anti-military.
Just so long as the "Removings" begin at home. If we clean our own house, maybe some of those other "evil dictators" would feel a bit of pressure from within their own borders, particularly in the absence of the threat our Bungle appears to represent to their sovereignty?
And O'really thought the LA Times was part of the looney left...HA!! Jokes on YOU, Billyboy...
You have to understand that the LA Times expects everyone to operate by the strict code of Bushido. Everyone should happily sacrifice themselves for their "master" even if the master has proven to be chronically ignorant, arrogant, secretive, untrustworthy and manipulative. Who cares about the fact that the ever shifting rationale the "master" used to get into this war has been proven wrong. No WMD, Saddam a martyr in a botched execution, Iraqi infrastructure completely devestated, reconstruction ground to a halt, Geneva conventions with respect to torture tampled over, U.S. clout and prestige worldwide in steep decline, the so-called Iraqi democracy a nest of sectarian grievances, thousands of U.S. casualties, and tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties. Oh yeah, and I almost forgot the trillion dollars and more that millions of anti-military citizens have already paid to finance the largest foreign policy blunder of the past thirty years. Sure, we are all a bunch of ungrateful traitors who should just shut up and prove how pro-military we are and insist that our countryman stay and die for a group of elite, all-knowing war mongers who have no personal stake in this war and who have made no sacrifices. Its the least we can do for our masters.
What If John Kerry or Chris Matthews or Mrs Clinton Had Been President?
IT WAS EARLY SEPT 11,2001 PRESIDENT CHRIS MATTHEWS WAS HELPING SOME LITTLE CHILDREN WITH THEIR READING WHEN HE RECEIVED WORD THAT AMERICA WAS ATTACKED AND LATER AFTER MUCH INVESTIGATING IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE TERRORIST WERE FROM THE MIDDLE EAST AND AT THAT TIME OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM WAS IRAQ, IT WAS PAY BACK TIME FOR THE MIDDLE EAST AND IRAQ WAS THE HOME OF THE BIGGEST MURDERER IN THIS CENTURY THE GUYS NAME WAS SADDAM HE HAD TO BE TAKEN OUT TO SHOW THE WORLD YOU DO NOT ATTACK AMERICA NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE AND ALL THE LEADERS THAT CARED ABOUT AMERICA WERE IN AGREEMENT WITH PRESIDENT MATTHEWS AND THUS IS WHERE WE ARE TODAY BUT NOW PRESIDENT MATTHEWS HAS A PROBLEM THAT NO ONE COULD HAVE IMAGINE A CIVIL WAR HAS ERUPTED BECAUSE THE LEADER OF THE MUSLIM WORLD (MUHAMMAD) died so suddenly that there was confusion as to who would be the next ruler of the Islamic state.to this day, The Islamic world is divided because of this issue (Shia vs. Sunni).SO PRESIDENT MATTHEWS NOW HAS TO DECIDE TO CUT AND RUN OR STAY IN IRAQ AND FINISH THE JOB OF BRINGING FREEDOM TO THE 75 % OF THE PEOPLE THAT DO NOT CARRY THEIR RELIGION ON THEIR SHOULDER. THIS IS NOT JUST AN AMERICA WAR BUT A WAR THAT DETERMINES WHETHER THE FREE WORLD STAYS FREE OR ALLOWS MUSLIM TERRORIST TO RULE. THE GOOD MUSLIMS ARE OF NO HELP It does not matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by their own pronouncements - killing all of us "infidels." the peaceful Muslims are afraid to lend a hand. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die? In countries without freedom you will be killed. So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question: What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan is clearly for terrorists to attack us, until we are neutered and submissive to them, If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. The Muslims Terrorist fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost!! Thank you Mr.President MATTHEW and our great Soldiers, I am so proud that "DEFEAT" IS ONE WORD YOU DO NOT USE. I AM WITH YOU ALL THE WAY EVEN IF YOUR LAST NAME WERE BUSH OR KERRY OR MRS CLINTON.[link to searchwarp.com]
Is today "no puntuation or paragraph day"?
The CIA said they had no evidence of Iraqi involvement in international terrorism for over a decade. The head of the CIA said they did not believe Iraq was a threat to attack us. Saddam isnt even in the same LEAGUE as the worst murderers in this century. Do the names Hitler, Pol Pot, Suhuarto, Idi Amin ring a bell. Lastly from as much of your ranting propaganda as I could stomach your morally reprehensible contention that we just had to pick a country at random and show them how willing we are to just kill people makes you sound pretty much like a terrorist. You apparantly dont CARE who gets killed and if they are innocent or not, you have that in common with Osama Ben Laden. I think you should A) get some idea what you are talking about before spewing such nonsense and B) look up the word morality since it is apparantly a foriegn concept to you.