Lieberman

[andyfox]

"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years," the senator said. "We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."

Isn't it the president himself who has undermined his own credibility? How does criticism of his statements and policies, unless there's some substance or truth to the criticism, undermine his credibility?

[BluffTHIS!]

Because it allows our enemies like terrorists and the insurgents in Iraq to think that they can drag out the violence and win because we are not united in purpose once having committed our forces.

[andyfox]

"Because it allows our enemies like terrorists and the insurgents in Iraq to think that they can drag out the violence and win because we are not united in purpose once having committed our forces."

What is the "it"? Criticizing the president? If we fear undermining the president's credibility with criticism, what are we fighting for in Iraq?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
"Because it allows our enemies like terrorists and the insurgents in Iraq to think that they can drag out the violence and win because we are not united in purpose once having committed our forces."

What is the "it"? Criticizing the president? If we fear undermining the president's credibility with criticism, what are we fighting for in Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact is that even if our involvement is wrong as you believe it to be, then such criticism lets the enemy know that we are divided and that possibly by continuing a resistance they otherwise would not, that we will lack the political unity to see it through. This thus endangers more soldiers' lives who otherwise would get to come home sooner.

[andyfox]

That come with the territory of being a democracy, though, doesn't it? If we were stifled in our political conversation during wartime, wouldn't we no better than Hussein's Iraq?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
That come with the territory of being a democracy, though, doesn't it? If we were stifled in our political conversation during wartime, wouldn't we no better than Hussein's Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweetjazz made my point andy, which is not about restricting our political rights by law domestically, but that we should as a nation be aware of the risks to our soldiers in political disunity back home, and be willing to self-limit it. I detested President Clinton and everything he ever did, but if he were commander-in-chief during a war situation, I would be willing to back his play even if I didn't like the situation, and show a unified America to those we were in combat with, and save the recriminations for after the fighting was finished.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Because it allows our enemies like terrorists and the insurgents in Iraq to think that they can drag out the violence and win because we are not united in purpose once having committed our forces."

What is the "it"? Criticizing the president? If we fear undermining the president's credibility with criticism, what are we fighting for in Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact is that even if our involvement is wrong as you believe it to be, then such criticism lets the enemy know that we are divided and that possibly by continuing a resistance they otherwise would not, that we will lack the political unity to see it through. This thus endangers more soldiers' lives who otherwise would get to come home sooner.

[/ QUOTE ]

"We" are divided as in people in politics at home. But our military's goals remain firm. Terrorists/insurgents know this, they don't have the intellects of six year olds. We need a discourse, we can't just eliminate free speech because it makes us seem weak. It makes us seem democratic, which is what we are. And what we want them to be.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
"We" are divided as in people in politics at home. But our military's goals remain firm. Terrorists/insurgents know this, they don't have the intellects of six year olds. We need a discourse, we can't just eliminate free speech because it makes us seem weak. It makes us seem democratic, which is what we are. And what we want them to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what the liberal mainstream media would have you believe. What they are not reporting is that Zarqawi is telling the insurgents to stop attacking if Democrats start supporting the president. The insurgents aren't killing innocent Iraqis and American soliders; Democrats are.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that even if our involvement is wrong as you believe it to be

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, it IS wrong. Bush and his crew lied the nation into a war of aggression. That is a war crime and a crime against the nation. There is NO legitimate defense of this criminal conduct, whatever your partisan affection for the man may be.

[ QUOTE ]
then such criticism lets the enemy know that we are divided

[/ QUOTE ]

America IS divided.

Get used to it.

You did it by lying the nation into a war of aggression.

[ QUOTE ]
and that possibly by continuing a resistance they otherwise would not

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me you're not really this stupid.

Seriously.

Iraqis are not attacking an occupying army because Bush is domestically unpopular ten thousand miles away. They are attacking an occupying army because it is an occupying army.

How geniunely stupid do you have to be not to recognize this?

[ QUOTE ]
that we will lack the political unity to see it through.

[/ QUOTE ]

"see it through". What a lovely sounding political catch-phrase. And what does it mean? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Because you don't have an exit strategy. You NEVER had an exit strategy. You people just like repeating Hallmark Card phrases like "stay the course" and "see it through", while ten thousand miles away American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are being maimed and burned and killed to supply you with your Hallmark Moments.

But the truth is that you really don't care, just as long as you get to accuse your political opponents of "disloyalty", in furtherance of your own partisan politics. It's shameful behavior, and you hacks should be called on it every day, every hour, every minute.

[ QUOTE ]
This thus endangers more soldiers' lives who otherwise would get to come home sooner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a way to get them "home sooner" : bring them home NOW.

Or, in the alternative, let's send America's Young Republicans to take their place. I'm sure Rush would be happy to help with the recruitment effort. And if you don't want to sign up and see the bloodshed firsthand, well, he can just tell his millions of listeners that you're a traitor. And naturally they'll believe him. Because real patriots don't ask questions. Right? Right.


q/q

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
"Because it allows our enemies like terrorists and the insurgents in Iraq to think that they can drag out the violence and win because we are not united in purpose once having committed our forces."

What is the "it"? Criticizing the president? If we fear undermining the president's credibility with criticism, what are we fighting for in Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, we are obviously fighting for an Iraq in which the people there will have a government in which they will not be able to criticize their government, which will prevent their military from being undermined!

We all know that Iraq will never be attacked once people realize that they are united behind everything they do. Soldiers only die when their government is criticized.