this is stupid long!
fossten said:
Schumer Lets Slip: 'We Support The Troops' a Sham [Video]
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on January 25, 2007 - 07:37.
"But we support the troops!"
Has there been any phrase that has been so used and abused by the Democrats as they seek to give themselves cover?
But in one fell 'slip', Chuck Schumer gave away the game this morning: the claim to support the troops is a sham. It is merely something to be figured out later, after Democrats, with some Republican support, rush through a resolution telling our troops that the mission for which they are putting their lives on the line is not just meaningless but absolutely antithetical to our nation's interests.
David Gregory interviewed Sen. Schumer on this morning's "Today."
View video
here.
Gregory: "The Vice-President is dismissive of this [resolution] effort yesterday saying it's not going to stop the president, and in fact he goes further, saying this will be detrimental to the troops on the ground."
Schumer: "Absolutely not, and I think it's going to be shown, when this resolution comes up, and it is non-binding, my guess is that not only are we going to get a vast majority of Democrats to vote for it in one form or another, but close to a majority of the Republicans. And that is going to shock even Vice-President Cheney."
Gregory:
"But how can the public really buy the Democrats support the troops but don't support the mission? How can you do both?"
Schumer: "Well, that's the difficulty. A resolution that says we're against this escalation, that's easy.
The next step will be how do you put further pressure on the administration against the escalation but still supporting the troops who are there? And that's what we're figuring out right now."
Kudos to Gregory for posing the question. Thanks, too, to Sen. Schumer, for letting the cat out of the bag.
http://newsbusters.org/node/10386
First, a couple things to mention... I've served a tour in Iraq as well as a tour in Kosovo, I am pretty much a diehard republican and I almost always vote straight ticket.
Having gotten those bias attributes out of the way... My whole purpose of putting on that uniform is to protect the constitiution of the United States of America (don't confuse this as protecting the idividual citizen, but the country as a whole, along with the rights and liberties aforded to her citizens). Part of that constitution is the freedom of speech that we all hold so dear when it's our own voice and view we want heard, but wish we could simply wipe away for others when we dissagree with their views. I feel pride when someone makes their differing view on things heard in a respectful manor. Why? Because their us of that right directly corilates to me, the sacrifices I've made and the things I've done.
What a lot of people do not see is that while we call it a "right" as outlined in our declaration of independence, bill of "rights" and consitution, it and everything else we call a "right" is actually a privledge here in the human world. See, a "right" is something you are naturally entitled to, a privledge is something given to you that can be taken away. In all actuallity the only "right" we have in this world is death; ultimatily, it is something we are entitled to that will at some point be given to us, weather by natural means, the hand of another, or our own hand. Everything else is nothing more than a privledge; it is something given to you through the blood, sweat and tears of yourself, or others. Most people have, at best, a very remedial understanding of this. Your adverage person has never had to sacrifice for these privledges we've come to call rights, they've never seen TRUE oppression. As a result, these privledges are taken for granted as something which is somehow their birth-right rather than understanding the true value of it, how it was earned, how it was given to them, and how it could be taken away.
So when someone voices their views, be it the same, or different from my own, I take pride in knowing that in a very, very small way I've contributed to GIVING them that
privledge, and if people such as myself were to ceast to exist, they would see how what they call a "right" is infact a privledge, which can be taken away just as easily as it were given.
Having said all of that, I will make a couple of points which are more related to the subject at hand. First, I didn't see in the quotes anywhere where he said the "I support the troops but not the war" is a sham. Of course I did not watch the video, so perhaps it wasn't quoted. Anyhow, I think some further review of his statements would be in order. "how do you put further pressure on the administration against the escalation but still supporting the troops who are there?" If you look, that says neither that he supports or does not support the war as a whole. The key points are that he does not support sending additional troops to Iraq, but does not want to erode financial or emotional support for the troops currently there. I think this is certainly something note-worthy. I won't make a call as to his support, or lack of towards the war as a whole, but it is readily apparent to me his lack of support for an increase in troops on the ground in Iraq. Further, it is apparent he has concerns over how to deminstrate his, and his party's opposition to the increase without causing harm to the funding for the soldiers already there. I think you might have looked too deep into his statements (not that it means he doesn't believe that, but this doesn't support that assurtion).
Second point; "I support the troops but not the war". I have some serious mixed emotions on this. I fully understand the sediment behind it, however it is a conflicting statement in and of itself. If you do not support the war for whatever reasons (moral, political, legal), then you can not actually support the troops because we are the ones carrying out the war. Without trigger puller's, you have no war. If it's a morality issue, the troops on the ground are the ones doing the killing. If you believe it is illegal, the troops on the ground are commiting a crime everytime they engauge a target. It is like saying "I don't support murder, but I support the murderer".
In this world, everything comes down to choice; no one decides anything for you. They might install "road blocks" for some of those choices, but you can still make them; you just have to face the road block when you get to it. Is it your choice to murder, rape, rob, graduate highschool, go to college, get a job, pay taxes? Yes to all of them; are there negitive aspects to some of those choices if you choose to follow that route? Absolutly. The same is true in the military as with the rest of life. Each one of us must be held accountable for our actions; not only to our legal system and our superiors, but to ourselves and whatever higher-power we may or may not believe in. Was I forced to join the military? Was I forced to go to war? Was I forced to engauge targets? No to all of those. If I really feel a moral problem with something I am told to do, it is my duty to myself to refuse to do it and deal with the results of my actions. There for, it is the soldiers, marines, sailors and airman that conduct the war, choose to obey their orders and allow the big green killing machine to grind forward. So when you break it down, the idea of "support the soldiers, not the war" makes little to no sense.
However, it is people's understanding of the loyalty, commitment, sacrifice and resolve which members of the military posess that gives weight to the term. They understand that it isn't about what I feel and believe, it's about exicuting the orders of the congress, president and those appointed over me. That is the commitment which ensures we as a people are able to live the way we do. It isn't about personal morals, ethics and beliefs; when you sign the line, you agree to exchange your own for those which the military has given you, the same military which is ran and directed by the civilians the president and congress appoints, whom inturn are put into office by the majority vote of the people. Although it is a distant connection, you as a voter are responcible for every bullet that exits the barrel of my rifle when I pull the trigger(and don't give me this "I didn't vote for him" BS; 90% of congress and senate approved the war; the number of you who didn't vote for any of them is so small it isn't even worth figuring). There for it is understandable how you can support the troops for what they have given to you, and because in essence, you sent them there and at the same time, decided at some point along the way that we should not be there.
The long and short of it is: although the phrase does grind on me, I understand the setiment behind it; as do most of us. If it were me, I would not choose that statement to express my feelings; I would be more adapt to simply saying "I apprechate your commitment and sacrifice" and let my voting do the talking on the support for the war.
Last but not least... As i said... I do feel pride when people voice their own views, but the key to that is, in a respectful mannor. I will never attack an idividual, reguardless of my own personal feelings for that person and their views. Doing that begins to encrotch upon their "rights" to the PEACEFUL pursuit of happyness. Just remember, your "rights" stop where mine start, and no where in any of the constitution do you have the right to verbally assult someone.
NOTE: I'm at work (slow da) and unable to install the spell checking tool. My gramar isn't too bad, but my spelling is horrible. So bear with me!
