A Rope ‘n a Tree for this Staff Sgt and his Soldiers!
By Mona
.
When last we discussed Glenn Reynolds’ pal Dan Riehl, Dan had called for Harry Reid’s neck to be stretched until dead for declaring the U.S. cannot win in Iraq. Well, at TPM Cafe, Greg Sargent finds some soldiers saying the same treasonous thing!:
So, let’s see. According to Staff Sgt. Matt St. Pierre….(1) The U.S. can’t win the war;.(2) He and his soldiers agree after talking “at length” that this is their Vietnam;.(3) The “majority” in Iraq is “against us” right now.
Someone needs to inform Hugh Hewitt’s Victory Caucus, and pronto, about the IslamoHitlerFascist treachery running throughout our armed services. For they just posted that Harry Reid is a modern day Tokyo Rose, and that (my emphasis):
Every time a Democratic candidate or the media report that the “war in Iraq cannot be won”, they are insulting the troops on the ground that fight every single day in a battle they DO think they can win. They are telling these brave men and women who are our soldiers that they do not believe in their capabilities nor do they believe the soldiers own words when they say they ARE winning this war in Iraq….As Tokyo Rose was forced to demoralize our troops in World War II, the left now demoralizes our troops in Iraq.
Should we believe our own soldiers words when they say we cannot win, hmmmm? Or are they just “insulting” their fellow soldiers and committing treason like our Senate Majority Leader?
.
And finally, will there be enough rope to go around, with hemp production so curtailed? VC et al. best be checking into that.
Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator —
April 23, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
Reid: Iraq War lost, U.S. can’t win…
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday the war in Iraq is “lost,” triggering an angry backl…
Comment by Brad R. —
April 23, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
What makes this line of argument so cringe-inducing is that it’s entirely based on emotion. Every time anyone says something truthful about how poorly the war has gone and how “winning” as the preznit defines it is impossible, they spaz out and say “YOU HAVE SLANDERED THE TROOPS, THE HEART AND SOUL OF EVERYTHING IN AMERICA.” There is no underlying logic to it- it’s purely an emotional response. Yuck.
Comment by KCinDC —
April 23, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
Like Atrios, I wonder whether running ads that repeat “The war is lost” over and over again is really the best strategy for Republicans preparing for next year’s election. (I also note that the NRSC is actually promoting michellemalkin.com in its ads.)
Comment by John Spragge —
April 24, 2007 @ 2:23 am
Um, guys, I seem to recall (always allowing for the possibility that some major accident blew me in from a parallel universe) that the “war” originally meant an ongoing struggle to convince millions of people to live in peace and tolerance with everyone else. I think the American political leaders called it first the War on Terror and then the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism. It constitutes a struggle, mostly political but with a military and police component, to find a way for a people with profoundly different religious views to coexist.
I seem to recall that the people who advocated the invasion of Iraq made it very clear at the time that the actions they proposed would form a campaign in the wider war.
Now, preliminary evidence strongly suggests that the Iraq campaign has gone about as well as the Battle of France went for the Allies, or the 1942 summer offensive went for Germany. If the current trends persist, we still have to see if the Americans will end the operation the way the British ended the Battle of France at Dunkirk, or whether they will end the way the Germans ended Fall Blau at Stalingrad.
Whatever the end of the Iraq campaign, whether it ends in a setback which we accept, or a setback made worse by denial, or even a victory snatched from the current disaster, the larger struggle (call it a war if you want) will continue.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
April 24, 2007 @ 10:19 am
So, the soldiers are traitors if they think they can’t win, and the soldiers are scary mercenaries if they think they can win.
I’d feel bad for this rhetorical treatment of our military folks if they, you know, didn’t have serious things to worry about.
Comment by Ultima Ratio —
April 24, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
To carry the analogy further: who are the “invaders” in the present-day scenario? From whom is the U.S. “liberating” Iraq?