The Dems Aren't Gonna Like This One...

...and it certainly won't be discussed on the Today Show or reported on MSNBC.  I'm talking about the latest poll reported by the WaPo....which, of course, was a shock in and of itself.

Seventy percent of people polled said that the negative comments made by Democrats about the efforts in Iraq hurt troop morale.

As Cappy would say...can we question their patriotism yet?

Now...not that this poll isn't stating the obvious, because we all know it is, but it also sends a strong message to the Dems.  A message that they very well should listen to if they want any chance of winning anything on '06.   

The message is "SHUT UP".  Stop with all the derogatory public statements against the President's war efforts.  The Kennedys and the Bidens....the Merthas and the Schumers need to keep their mouths shut.

Look, I'm not against anyone opposing the war.  That's what makes this country great.  But all of this public grandstanding serves no purpose.  If any member of the Congress has a concern or opposing view of the war, they need to voice it to the president behind closed doors.  They don't need to give our enemies more ammunition....our soldiers should not turn on a television and have to watch Mertha on CNN talking about bad the war is going.  They shouldn't be subjected to Kennedy calling the war a quagmire.

To the democrats....Lets keep a united front folks.  Let's show the world we back our soldiers.  Our politicians need to show our enemies that we stand behind our leader.  It shouldn't have to take another 9/11 to bring this country together.

The Democrats need to put their attitudes in their back pockets and support our soldiers in Iraq.  Period.

Lisa

Hat tip:  Lori Byrd

Comments

[jestplainol'bill]

it didn't seem to affect the Boys-in-Blue when the Northern Copperheads Democrats bad-mouthed the War of Northern Agression and Mr. Lincoln.

the word from the soldiers here is that they don't pay too much attention to what the MSM says.

They know what the mission is and most support that mission.

[Chris]

Actually, while watching Fox this weekend, I heard someone who is serving in Iraq say that the troops are very careful to distinguish between the political rhetoric and "love and support" the feel from the folks back home. He said they had a mission to accomplish and they were focused on that, that they would let the political discourse take them where it takes them but that thye didn't confuse that with the support from the American people.

Biden has never been against the war--he has only ever said that we need to fight it right--and the asministration hasn't changed the way they do things in the face of overwhelming evidence that what they were doing wasn't working so the time for private comments is over.

As for the President's war efforts, they are incredibly lacking. This isn't kindergarten; effort really doesn't count for much.

[jestplainol'bill]

Chris, you are so wrong. But then I learned along time ago to not try and argue with a Democrat.

You couldn't argue me out of my "yellow-dog Democrat" support before I grew up. It took experience.

Pls explain to those of us without your and Biden's vast military experience just what you would do differently now.

[Chris]

I guess you'd have to be more specific in your question, Bill. What would Biden and I do differently about what? But let me take a shot at it--

Well, we probably would have learned from history. We probably would have--in planning for this war--acknowledged the historical significance of Iraq.

We wouldn't have disbanded the military which would have left an officer corps--which would have left us with a way better functioning Iraqi army now.

We wouldn't have wasted a year and not trained Iraqi soldiers which would mean we'd have a lot more who were able and ready to fight now.

We would have sent enough troops to stop the looting, seal the borders and launch a counter insurgency--which is something we can't do now. We clear out a town, leave it in the hands of the IRaqi's and then the bad guys come back. Can you, with your military experience, tell me where it says it is smart military tactics to have to take the same town four times?

We would not have put Generals in charge who were more concerned about their careers than they were about getting this thing done. It has been said time and time again that the commanders in Iraq have all the troops they need. Sure they do because they understand that Rumsfeld's position on the military is tto assume more risk when fighting. It is no longer overwhelming force or the powell doctrine. He has said so--fewer troops assuming more risk so that the military can be sleeker and move faster. So, the Generals would be committing political suicide toa sk for more troops.

Biden has been to Iraq five times and says flag officers told him there were not enough troops. Warner had a meeting with 10 military battleground experienced guys where the marines and army guys told him that they didn't have enough troops to do the job.

But mostly what we would have done differently would have been to actually have achievable goals and a plan to get there.

WMD, get rid of Saddam, and have a stable Iraq. Which is it? 2 of those goals are accomplished--although the WMD one was done before we got there. A stable Iraq? OK, but Iraq has been stable in the last bazillion years only through the control of violent dictators so that one is a tough one--one that can't be achieved through only military power. That one takes about 20 years of our involvement. Which, if that was the goal, the President should have said so in the beginning and set expectations accordingly--which we all know he didn't.

I'm sorry Bill, what was your question again? ;0)

[Lisa]

We can all sit back in our comfortable leather recliners and talk about what we would have done differently. That's a given. It doesn't mean politicians SHOULD get out there behind a microphone and tell the world what they "would have done" if they were in charge. It serves absolutely no purpose except give aid to our enemy and give further proof to the troops that the democrats don't support them.

[jestplainol'bill]

Sorry Chris, doesn't fly. That is what we "shoulda" done according to you. But 'shoulda-woulda-coulda' don't answer the question of what you would do now.

I can tell you that if you ask a commander if he has "enough" of something that 99% of them will never say they have "enough". What you do is say that is all you are getting and tell them to devise a plan around that. Enough is never enough to a commander.

Quite honestly your comment about Generals more interested in their careers is unfounded. Tommy Franks at first, as all commander's do, said I ain't got enough. But then define "enough". When the Turks (with pressure from your friends the Frogs and the Jerries) refused to allow us into the north we were looking at delays until "enough" could be landed. Delays cost also.

As to "enough" now and "putting" more boots on the ground. I can imagine the howls from the Demodawgs if that had happened.

Arming the Iraqi Army and retaining them at the time? Again the howls from the DemoDawgs if we had done that.

Were mistakes made? Anytime you do anything you make mistakes.

But I wouldn't align myself with the Copperhead Democrats if I were you. The current ones smell of politics now as they did in Lincoln's day.

[Chris]

Hey Lisa, your republican talking points are old and tired--you can keep saying them over and over and over--but the American people aren't buying it--the majority of them don't agree with how Bush has handled the war. And so the aid and comfort to the enemy crap might fly with Ann Coulter, but you just called over half the American people--um--traitors--and before you jump up and down--no you didn't say traitor but I believe that is the technical name for someone who provides aid nd comfort to the enemy...hmmmm---maybe it is the people who continue to want to provide soldiers for the insurgency to grind up without changing to allow us to fight this war better or smarter or without a plan on how to win who are providing aid and comfort to the enemy--oh wait, that would be you

[Lisa]

I'm not sure what comment you are referring to Chris, but it ain't mine. I said that "politicians" getting behind a microphone and talking about "what they would have done" does nothing but give aid to the enemy and show our troops that the democrats dont support them.

What part of that did you not understand. I never said the general population were giving aid to the enemy....I said the politicians.

And as my post indicated, 77 percent of the American People agree with me that the democrats are hurting the war efforts with all of these negative talking points.

Next time...slow down... read every word...not just the ones you cherry pick for your own purposes.

Typical democrat...

[jestplainol'bill]

but Democrats can change. I did. I woke up one day and determined that the DemoDawg pols were not being truthful with me. that they were not for the 'little guy". that they were only out for themselves and that they lie everytime their mouths open up. Took me about 35 years because I am hard-headed but it can be done.

[Matt Hurley]

Generally speaking, I hate polls. And this one is no different. The only poll that matters happens on election day.

This one was done RT Strategies...the R is a democrat, the T is a republican who was a veteran pollster. We have no idea what contribution the democrat makes to the company because his background wasn't elaborated.

My point: Let's not get too excited about this poll. Pollsters have the tendency to get the results they were looking for...

Personally, I think this poll is probably right...but I don't think it actually proves anything.

[Capitalist Infidel]

You gotta love the fact that 55% of democrats question their own patriotism

[JohnDewey]

Chris,

I disagree with your definition of "traitor". When the action of a politician or even a majority of the populace aids an enemy, I don't believe that action is necessarily traitorous. I would think a person is a traitor only if he realizes he is aiding the enemy. It is very possible for a U.S. Senator to be stupid enough to aid our enemy without even realizing he is doing so.

[Lisa]

Matt,

The purpose of my post wasn't to get everyone excited about it. But you certainly have to admit it does confirm everything we all have been saying about the effect that the democrats' anti-war rhetoric has on the troops and the war effort.

[Matt Hurley]

Don't get me wrong, Lisa, I think your highlighting of it is worth doing, I just think it is wise to issue the caveat that polls are mostly worthless.

[dave]

this tedious and pointless debate must be just riveting for the handful of people involved...has anyone changed their mind or improved the world today?

[Lisa]

Dave,

I can see by your profound comment that you are just so intellectually far superior to any of the rest of us here.

I'm sure you won't want to bother with us anymore...so be on your way.

[HC]

I think understand Right Wing World.

The President lying a nation into war - Good.

Criticizing the President for lying a nation into war - Bad.

The President sending troops into war without Body Armor - Good.

Criticizing the President for sending troops to war without Body Armor – Bad.

Not sending enough Troops to Iraq to win the war – Good.

Criticizing the President for not sending enough Troops to Iraq to win the war – Bad.

The President not having an Exit Plan – Good.

Suggesting an Exit Plan – Bad.

If the public was asked to compare each items above, do you think they would say the President's actions or the Democrats words were more demoralizing to the Troops?

Some how it seems that Right Wing World is backwards, but what do I know because I am not that smart.

[Lisa]

HC

I said in my post that I have nothing against anyone disagreeing with the President.

But when politicians do it, they need to do it behind closed doors so there is at least the appearance of a united front for the enemies to see.

[catastrophile]

YEAH!!! GODDAMN LIBRUL STRAPHANGERS!!!

"I’m not being negative, I’m being realistic. The reality in Iraq is that the United States created a nightmare situation where one didn’t exist." --Captain Jeff Pirozzi; Camp Taqaddum, Iraq

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=33305

[catastrophile]

Seriously, though:

If, sometime after the 2006 elections, the Pretzeldent decides that to win the War on Terra we have to start firing Marines at passing asteroids, are you going to stick your common sense in your back pocket and shut up because you're worried about hurting morale? Or are you going to call a bad idea a bad idea?

The fact that there's a war going on doesn't vitiate our duty to speak our minds. If it did, there'd be no democracy left to allegedly fight for.

[Capitalist Infidel]

I love watching far left wing fringe kooks like cat implode!

[catastrophile]

And I love watching you follow your beloved drunken-cokehead messiah, step-by-step, as he stumbles around trying to figure out why nobody likes him anymore.

But thanks for your total lack of substance.

[Rita]

You know, it would be nice if we could all agree that the BS that is slinging should stop already and right now we should be thinking of our troops. After all, they are a long way from home (and that includes troops in Europe, Africa, Middle East, South America, etc...) and the holidays are upon us. Why don't we all just wish them all peace and good will and stand by them while we are sitting in our armed chairs, drinking spiked eggnog and eating like pigs in a barnyard. Oh, and I hope you all remember those American Contractors who are still being held captive in South America after 2 bloody years.

[catastrophile]

So, I take it that by "wish them all peace" you mean "stop calling for an end to the war," right?

It would be nice if the administration could be counted on to do the right thing without being hounded every second. But they've demonstrated that this is not the case. Talk to them.

[Rita]

You can do whatever you like, I am just saying that we will not leave there until the mission is completed no matter what you or I say or think. And I am also saying give those men a women some respect and credit, because we know that they will be there for the continuing future.