Aid the Enemy

[fintstone]

Do the actions of the anti-war crowd actually aid the enemy? I say yes...as does this fine article:

NEW IDEA FOR ABORTION PARTY: AID THE ENEMY
November 23, 2005

In the Iraq war so far, the U.S. military has deposed a dictator who had already used weapons of mass destruction and would have used them again. As we now know, Saddam Hussein was working with al-Qaida and was trying to acquire long-range missiles from North Korea and enriched uranium from Niger.

Saddam is on trial. His psychopath sons are dead. We've captured or killed scores of foreign terrorists in Baghdad. Rape rooms and torture chambers are back in R. Kelly's Miami Beach mansion where they belong.

The Iraqi people have voted in two free, democratic elections this year. In a rash and unconsidered move, they even gave women the right to vote.

Iraqis have ratified a constitution and will vote for a National Assembly next month. The long-suffering Kurds are free and no longer require 24/7 protection by U.S. fighter jets.

Libya's Moammar Gadhafi has voluntarily dismantled his weapons of mass destruction, Syria has withdrawn from Lebanon, and the Palestinians are holding elections.

(Last but certainly not least, the Marsh Arabs' wetlands ecosystem in central Iraq that Saddam drained is being restored, so even the Democrats' war goals in Iraq are being met.)

The American military has accomplished all this with just over 2,000 deaths. These deaths are especially painful because they fall on our greatest Americans. Still, look at what the military has done and compare the cost to 600,000 deaths in the Civil War, 400,000 deaths in World War II and 60,000 deaths in Vietnam (before Walter Cronkite finally threw in the towel and declared victory for North Vietnam).

What is known as a "hawk" in today's Democratic Party looks at what our military has accomplished and — during the war, while our troops are in harm's way — demands that we withdraw our troops.

In an upbeat speech now being aired repeatedly on al-Jazeera, last week Rep. John Murtha said U.S. troops "cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home." Claiming the war is "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion," Murtha said the "American public is way ahead of us."

Fed up with being endlessly told "the American people" have turned against the war in Iraq, Republicans asked the Democrats to show what they had in their hand and vote on a resolution to withdraw the troops.

By a vote of 403-3, the House of Representatives wasn't willing to bet that "the American people" want to pull out of Iraq. (This vote also marked the first time in recent history that the Democrats did not respond to getting their butts kicked by demanding a recount.)

The vote is all the more shocking because of what it says about the Democrats' motives in attacking the war — as well as alerting us to three members of Congress we really need to keep an eye on.

It is simply a fact that Democrats like Murtha are encouraging the Iraqi insurgents when they say the war is going badly and it's time to bring the troops home. Whether or not there is any merit to the idea, calling for a troop withdrawal — or "redeployment," as liberals pointlessly distinguish — will delay our inevitable victory and cost more American lives.

Anti-war protests in the U.S. during the Vietnam War were a major source of moral support to the enemy. We know that not only from simple common sense, but from the statements of former North Vietnamese military leaders who evidently didn't get the memo telling them not to say so. In an Aug. 3, 1995, interview in The Wall Street Journal, Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, called the American peace movement "essential" to the North Vietnamese victory.

"Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American anti-war movement," he said. "Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."

What are we to make of the fact that — as we now know — the Democrats don't even want to withdraw troops from Iraq? By their own account, there is no merit to their demands. Before the vote, Democrats could at least defend themselves from sedition by pleading stupidity. Now we know they don't believe what they are saying about the war. (Thanks to that vote, the Islamo-fascists know it, too.)

The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle.

They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.
Ann Coulter

[creaturecat]

Mindless drivel!
Ann Coulter? Is she the brainiac that insisted (on national radio) that Canada fought in the Vietnam war?
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0206-23.htm

[creaturecat]

[dhoward]

[fintstone]

Although Canada itself was not a participant, thousands of Canadians served honorably in Vietnam.... many died trying to keep South Vietnam a free country. I am sure that is what she was talking about. Don't belittle their sacrifice. Unfortunately for Canada, many of these real men immigrated to the US afterwards leaving even fewer manly men in Canada. Sadly enough, Coulter probably knows Canadian history better than you.

[lendaddy]

The way I understand it Coulter knew of Canadians that had served in Vietnam so she assumed that the Gov. had sent them. She was wrong, they went on their own. How's that for stones!


Either way she was right and wrong at the same time. Big whup.

[fintstone]

http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Columnists/McRae_Earl/2005/11/11/1301845.html

[andrew15]

Finstone - You point out that some Canadians went to Vietnam by signing up voluntarily with the US, but we also know that Bush didn't volunteer to go overseas.

I'm confused - Are you finally admitting that people from other countries have bigger stones than your current administration?


AM

[fintstone]

Originally posted by andrew15
Finstone - You point out that some Canadians went to Vietnam by signing up voluntarily with the US, but we also know that Bush didn't volunteer to go overseas.

I'm confused - Are you finally admitting that people from other countries have bigger stones than your current administration?

AM

There are folks with stones in every country (with the possible exception of France). It may only be a small minority like are currently in Canada (note that a large percentage of Canadian Vietnam vets immigrated to a country that exhibits bigger stones on a daily basis. It seems there are a lot fewer Canadians with the stones to do the right thing these days.

Bush volunteered to fly fighter jets in our military during wartime. His unit did not go, but that was only happenstance. As far as I know, flying had the highest mortality rate of any job in Vietnam.