An indignant commenter at this blog who shall remain nameless, mostly because he/she/it posted anonymously, said this:
"Stop pretending that John Kerry speaks fo Democrats as a whole..."Who does Kerry represent then? He was the Democrat's candidate for President only two years ago. Is he just some isolated Democrat doofus with a platform? No, he was the man you lament isn't President right now, right? Greyhawk reminds us of who Kerry is. (As a beautiful aside, Greyhawk also shares a story of Sunnis and Shiites working together against the real enemy.)
The reason I refuse to let this topic go, and I know, dear readers, some of you break out into hives when the topic turns political, but oh well.... is because this is important. We are a country at war. As an example, turns out those chaps over in Britain intended to blow up planes over the U.S., not the Atlantic, to do more damage. Terrorism isn't a figment of Republican's imaginations.
The Anchoress has lots to say:
- The New York Times is lying about and for Kerry.
- Kerry's Non-Apology offensiveness.
- Important stories we're missing because Kerry's an ass. (Okay, she didn't say that last part. Something about his oxygen sucking or some such....)
Ace also has a great headline:
He goes on to note this:
Kerry represents modern leftist progressives who make up the majority of the Democratic party these days precisely because of this contempt for the common man and especially the enlisted soldier. Pelosi, Reid, the rest of the Democratic leadership are playing possum right now because they don't want average Americans to know what they truly believe. If they talk, the I'm-smarter-and-better-than-you attitude just seeps out. They can't help it. Kerry talked. And out of his mouth fell the Democrat dogma. And they wanted you to think that a guy like Harold Ford--Bible-believing, God-fearing, Playboy-bunny loving, football enjoying conservative--represents them. Ha!
The fact that Kerry served doesn't mean he liked or respected the sort of people he served with. His vicious Winter Soldier libels should indicate the level of contempt with which he held his fellow fighting men.
He wasn't a part of them. He was above them, looking down at them.
Veteran does not equal "supporter of the troops." Ever had a job where you despised just about everyone you worked with and considered yourself well above working there at all?
Kerry has. Actually, he's had few jobs were he didn't feel that way.
So, to get some perspective and as a reminder, here is what an Iraqi says are the stakes both for his country and the world. Now, you tell me, do you want a soldier-hating, Military-condemning, spineless party running this country and waging this war?
Let's call the battle for middle east, and I think politicians do not need anyone to explain to them what this part of the world means…the outcome of war in Iraq does not affect Iraq alone, a victory means disrupting the ring of terror and extremism the enemies are trying to establish while failure would be equal to allowing them to establish that huge ring, or should I say that gigantic octopus of terrorists and terror-supporting regimes that would extend from Afghanistan in the east to Libya in the west and from Iraq in the north to Sudan and Somalia in the south.Losing is not an option. The first step is to have the political will to send people to Washington who make winning a priority. Supporting and bolstering our troops means everything. Kerry represents the Democrats, alright. That's why they must lose.
And instead of creating islands of democracy and liberty, connecting them and extend from there to change the world to the better, the enemies would engulf those islands and add them to their multi-jointed entity of terror.
We need the decision-makers to rise above the rhetoric of who's right and who's wrong and focus on protecting the world from falling prey to the vicious enemies of civilization.
We are in the middle of this situation now and losing is not an option.
You know what, maybe the world isn't going to harvest direct benefits from winning the battle of Iraq but the world still has to spare no effort to win this battle, again not because winning will bring direct benefits but because losing here will bring subsequent losses that would no doubt be great.