Monday, September 17, 2007

Is this what you voted for?

There are times when most of us should just let a disgraceful and disgusting event speak for itself because the less ruckus that is made about it, the sooner it's lost to the public psyche. I was livid about the attack launched against General Petraeus. You didn't see that anger vented here because I felt the slander they committed against a patriot spoke for itself.

I have many friends and relatives who are registered Democrats; some may disagree with our presence in Iraq as part of our war against Islamofascism but none of them would have attacked a patriot like General Petraeus the way MoveOn attacked him. It's a shocking disgrace.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has released a video on YouTube that asks a very good question: Democrats, is *this* what you voted for?!

So, just who did Democrat voters elect? Good question. I wonder how many Democrats are actually aware of the answer... I know of a few right here in Kentucky who don't have a clue; they simply have always voted for the Democrat candidate.
[...] “We bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.” Those are the now infamous words spoken by founder Eli Pariser when speaking about the Democrat Party after the 2004 elections. “We own it.” That message was clear when Senate Democrats objected on the floor of the Senate to a resolution to denounce the despicable ad calling Gen. Petraeus a traitor. Make no mistake -- owns the Democrat Party. [...]
Read the full editorial from Senator John Ensign (R-NV) for a reminder of what was done to General Petraeus by Democrats who UNANIMOUSLY confirmed him in the first place. It's shameful and it should be denounced in full and loudly by anyone who wants to be taken seriously.


Anonymous said...

Equating all Democrats with is just as illogical as saying all Republicans endorse the remarks made by Ann Coulter. If you look at Ensign's essay on, she has an ad for her book "If Democrats had any Brains, They'd be Republicans".

Dawn said...

You are right, Anon. Logically it makes no sense to equate them the way you stated. I do not equate all Democrats with; I recognize that not all Republicans agree with Ann Coulter. However, if you read the post carefully, you'll notice that my question is simply whether Democrats realize who is running their party. If they do, they will understand that electing a Democrat is tantamount to electing George Soros and/or what used to be the kook fringe of that party.

Christian Conservatives are now a large voting block in the Republican party. Some Republicans (like me) are not concerned with who marries whom but we understand that the Religious Right is now driving a lot of the platform and GOP agenda because they are influential. That's all. Can I live with that? Sure. The real question is: Can you and other sensible Democrats live with the anti-American, disrespectful, and shrill bloc driving your party's agenda?

For the record, Senator Ensign is male. (Anon, it would appear that you're not paying attention to the links I provide for you!) I'm sure your comment about HIS book was meant to show me that Senator Ensign is biased. Well, yes, of course he is! None of us would be Republicans if we didn't think it was the smarter choice of parties.

Anonymous said...

John Ensign is one of my Senators here in Nevada. I know HE is a male. The word "she" in my sentence refers to Ann Coulter, whom I mentioned in the previous sentence when I wrote of HER book. I am not aware of any book Mr. Ensign has written. Sorry I confused you.

It is incorrect to state that is driving the Democratic Party's agenda. That is just a blatant attempt to invalidate the entire party by painting them as following a liberal group, when in reality, the Dems agenda represents a majority of Americans.

As for the ad itself, I personally think it went to far in exactly the same way the Swift Boaters did when they attacked a sitting member of the United States Senate, John Kerry, who is also a multiple Purple Heart Awardee.

Petraeus's testimony contradicts the findings of several independent reports. The often cited "success" in Anbar province had nothing to do with the surge. The increasing cooperation between U.S. forces and Sunni tribes in Anbar started more than 18 months ago, long before the "surge." This year, Anbar is actually the second-deadliest place for U.S. troops in Iraq. Baghdad is the deadliest. And while there's no doubt the numbers of troops killed in Anbar this year is lower than last year, troop casualties have spiked dramatically in other provinces. Twenty American service members were killed in Diyala Province last year. So far this year, 100 U.S. service members have died in Diyala. Every month this year, more American troops have been killed as compared with the same month last year. The Pentagon uses statistics selectively to bolster the case for success.

Dawn said...

*sigh* Anon, it really would be a better dialog between us if you would stop using party talking points in an effort to make a point here. Let me take your party's talking points one by one:

1.) "...when in reality, the Dems agenda represents a majority of Americans."

On what do you base this statement? On poll numbers? On the 2006 election results? No matter how you slice it, the majority of Americans are simply not polled; therefore, you cannot possibly know if the majority of Americans are represented by the Dem agenda. The results of the 2006 election can be attributed to factors other than the Dem agenda versus the GOP agenda; primarily dissatisfaction with the lack of solid progress in Iraq prior to the election and with the lack of attention to this nation's business. Conservatives, as much as anyone, want solid sustainable progress in Iraq and we especially would like Congress to get this nation's business done and stop screwing around with things that government has no business doing in the first place.

2.) " went to [sic] far in exactly the same way the Swift Boaters did when they attacked a sitting member of the United States Senate, John Kerry, who is also a multiple Purple Heart Awardee."

No, in fact, the attack on an honorable, professional, career active duty Army General is *completely* different than what we learned from the Veterans for Truth about Senator Kerry. John Kerry disgraced himself after serving a short stint in the military. Kerry threw his own awards away in a very dramatic and disrespectful stunt. He then proceeded to surround himself with phony soldiers who told nothing but stories they made up about their "time in 'Nam" when they had never served. Kerry did all of that to himself -- no political organization orchestrated a cheap advertising stunt for the public to learn about all this. It was public record, Anon. Maybe you're too young to understand the difference but it is FAR different.

By the way, The swiftboat veterans who spoke out had every right to tell their side of the story about their experiences with Senator Kerry in the service. The First Amendment applies to them as much, if not more, than to some shameless political organization. Just because you don't like what they have to say doesn't mean it's not true.

3.) "Petraeus's testimony contradicts the findings of several independent reports. The often cited "success" in Anbar province had nothing to do with the surge."

Frankly, this line of reasoning is tiresome to me. First of all, could you please cite for me the sources of these "independent reports?" Let's put that one to rest, shall we?

As for the successes in Anbar province, I don't give a flying fig why they came about... surge, no surge, whatever... they are SUCCESSES. Isn't that what Americans have been hoping for? Why the frig should I care about whether the surge caused it or the Iraqis finally stood up for themselves? I don't care. I want to see us achieve a sustainable victory in Iraq and every American ought to want the same thing. Otherwise, why not go ahead and say you wish us failure in Iraq? Why continue to hide behind fallacies in an effort to justify your dissatisfaction with achievements in Iraq? Be bold! Come right out and state it: You advocate failure for America in the Middle East. Period. Own it. Stop hiding behind nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Well, let's have a better dialog then. I won't accuse you of using "talking points" (another way of saying "you can't think for yourself") if you do the same. I respect your right to express your opinion. And I won't feign annoyance either (*sigh*). If it bothers me that much, I wouldn't reply.

0. Who said I was a democrat?
1. Have I based this statement on poll numbers? You're right, I haven't polled 150,574,974 (half our population plus one) Americans (July est.) Surely you're not implying that poll numbers lie. Any statistician will tell you that a properly conducted poll is very accurate in predicting outcome, or I wasted a lot of time going to Statistics class in college. I made that statement based on articles I've read, in Newsweek, I think, and elsewhere. Could be somewhat dated, I confess. Point is, polls can give us data from which we can establish facts to certain degree of accuracy, and all politicians use them. (Whoops, I should say MOST or even SOME, not ALL--I haven't polled them all. O.K., I know of one).

2)There's been enough rehashing of the Swift Boat attacks that I know we'll never accomplish anything by further discussion, so I'm just going to skip this. I'm willing to have a dialog on this--but I doubt have the time. Not copping out.

3. Wow. I was responding to each point as I read them, and I just read all of number three. It is hard to refrain from saying something really mean and nasty about you, but I can do it.

How do you define success? What is victory in Iraq? Failure in Iraq? What have we really achieved in Iraq and more broadly, in the region. Removing a threat? Right--no more threats. Widespread democracy? What a fantasy. If these are our goals and we continue to pursue them, we'll be fighting this war for how long? My guess is forever.