Thursday, February 15, 2007

Yes and No, Tom McMahon

Executive director of the Democratic party Tom McMahon is sending Democratic supporters an embarrassing e-mail.

In the e-mail, McMahon attacks House minority leader John Boehner for labeling critics of Bush's Iraq policy as terrorist symphathizers. Fair enough. Boehner is doing that, just like Bush & his administration have been doing that since the White House started pushing the invasion. And it's sleazy. It should stop.

But the "Democrats good, Republicans bad" portion of the e-mail is sort of pathetic, and it's a good example of why voters who try to pay attention to political debates often stop trying pretty fast.

McMahon writes:
Why are Republicans scared of a debate on America's top issue? And why can't they stand up to the Democrats on the current situation in Iraq?

Because it wasn't the Democratic Party that led us into a war on false pretenses. Democrats didn't alienate our global allies by ignoring diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful resolution. Democrats didn't reject the advice of our military leaders, who recommended we change the course. And Democrats didn't decide to put more of our troops in harm/s way to interfere in a bloody civil war with no end in sight.

The Democrats didn't start this war, but we're working to end it -- and the House resolution is an important first step to changing the course and bringing our brave men and women home.


Gee. While it's true that the Democrats in Congress in 2002 & 2003 didn't lead us into war or alienate our global allies or reject the advice of our military leaders, it's also true that with rare exceptions like Russ Feingold they didn't do squat to stop any of it. They all voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq at his discretion. They didn't challenge any of the lousy evidence used to support the decision to invade. They didn't ask hard questions. So Bush quarterbacked the Iraq debacle, but most of the Dems in Congress were standing on the sidelines with towels and Gatorade at the ready, cheering the team on.

It's fine to point out that the invasion was always a bad idea. It's fine to oppose the troop surge. It's not fine to pretend that you were knocked over the head and locked in the closet during the year before and after the invasion. Taking responsibility for your wartime mistakes (Tom McMahon, Hilary Clinton) is about more than "taking reponsibility" while pointing your finger at the White House and pretending you were out of town when that shit went down. Taking responsibility is about admitting you were wrong and responsibly trying to fix it.

Send me an e-mail about that, Tom McMahon, and I'll gladly read it.

Labels: , , ,

1 Comments:

At 7:39 PM , Anonymous rwethisdumb said...

,
I received the form email titled 'And I am a terrorist sympathizer?' from Gov Dean and Tom McMahon. I am compelled to comment. Why insist on pushing an agenda of Dem vs. Rep. The War on Terror is not about who's right or wrong. Why does it always have to be about Republicans and Democrats. The issues are far greater that Republican or Democratic party differences.
I do not believe politicians should set troop levels. Troop levels should be set by our military leaders including our commanders on the ground. What makes us think we have any idea of troop levels needed to succeed in a desert against an enemy we're never fought? Does any civilian have an inside on how to fight Terrorism? Step right up and tell the Generals how many and where to place troops. I'm a computer programmer. Not for one second do I believe I know how many politicians it involves to get something done. If you think the intelligence was faulty before, where are they getting the new and improved correct version now. CNN, Geraldo Riveria?
Don't you wonder why politicians and news organizations insist on quoting poll stats as if it means something. So the latest poll shows 70% of the public opposses troop escalation, what does that matter? Does anyone really think the American citizen is stupid enough to believe that our opinion of escalation means anything significant, other than what's popular at the time. How would the average American have any idea of troop size, deployment, funding, 'fake or faulty intelligence'. We don't have the information or ability that would enable us to decide these issues! That what a vote for a Senator or a President is, the confidence that your elected official will review ALL of the information available to them, intelligence, foreign policy, advice from analysts and so forth. Question it before voting and make an informed decision. ARE THEY TELLING US THAT THEY WERE MAKING THEIR INFORMED DECISIONS FROM POLLING INFORMATION OF OUR CITIZENS. Yes, that's exactly what it means when Gov. Dean emails me and tells me that 70% of Americans are against troop escalation and I should send a donation to the Democratic Party because they are sure now that the war's a bad idea. Good God, please tell me someone is making decisions based on pertinant and accurate information. My son is in Iraq, along with thousands of mothers sons. Our government called them there and now they are telling us they call this a failed war. They know this from polling stats.
I don't think politicians are stupid but they must think the American citizen is. They want us to believe that faulty intelligence called our children to war. The CIA, the FBI, Homeland Security, The United Nations and European Intelligence agencies conspired with the White House to create faulty intelligence that "tricked" Senators to vote for military action. Worse, they expect us to believe that the reason, the only reason, given to the Senate and House in the resolution for military action against Iraq was the suspician of a nuclear weapon, weapons or makings of a nuclear weapon? The resolution is a public document. I guess they don't count on us researching it and reading all the reasons for military action. But if we are supposed to buy that a silly White House report told them we are being threatened by nuclear weapons in Iraq not one of our leaders thought to ask if that was the sole reason to invade? Just common sense would make an idiot ask well then, why didn't we invade Russia to disarm them? We KNEW Russian had nuclear weapons with launch codes aimed at the US and we did not invoke military action. A child taking history knows what balance of power is. Using a weapon of mass destruction is only a winning ploy if the other team doesn't have one. Japan couldn't fire back. We can and would if threatened with total destruction. Everyone knows we did not go to Iraq to find a nuclear weapon. Iraq refused to let UN inspectors do their job and that's the reason we used to go there. The war is and always was about terrorism not WMD's. Al-Queda's homeland is Afghanistan but their training address is Iraq. The intelligence reports said Iraq was and is a country where terrorists can get safe habor as long as they have money. They train in Iraq, they bring their weapons in and out of Iraq, they test their suicide and gas bombs in Iraq. That is why military force was invoked and why it is still needed. Why is that hard to see? Have there been mistakes and errors in military strategy? OF COURSE THERE HAS!!!! We should have expected there would be. How do you train an army to fight ane enemy called Terror. We'd never sent our military to a war like this. How do you teach an American soldier that if the Iraqi coming toward you has a women in front of him shoot the woman, he's using her for a shield and might have a bomb. How do you tell a marine that the man who drives his car through your checkpoint every day for 30 days, smiling and welcoming you, on the 61st day he will drive up to your checkpoint and detonate the bomb strapped to him kill 13 American Marines. They don't want to occupy our country like the regular bad guys, they just want to kill us a few at a time. You bet we had to learn how to fight them. Is it a failed war? I call it a miracle our soldiers haven't dropped weapons and defected the way the House has. All war is bad, no war is run perfectly and it would be true to say that it's never popular and doesn't ever seem to be in our best interest. But the best of our nation has come from these terrible, poorly fought and costly wars. This land we live on, our right to independence, we fought ourselves for freedom for every American, the halt of the Holocaust and we shoved back at communism in Asia.
I don't know if we should send more or less troops but I definetly think we should stand united. Dividing us is exactly what they want. So, if the politicians can't agree to find some way to work together I want them to please just shut up and let the military do their job. We 'd better pray this doesn't become a failed war because the next act of terror might be aimed at your house, your childrens school or mine.
One thing is a success, since my son and thousands of others have been in Iraq there have been no acts of Terror in the United States. Do you think that's because we're fighting on their land or is that just a coincidence?
I don't think Dean or McMahon are terrorist sympathizers, I just think they are men obsessed with an agenda of bipartisin power. I I know it will take them down, I just hope those fools don't take the rest of us with them. Here's a good memory:
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. "
John F. Kennedy

We could sure use President Kennedy today. I don't think he'd care that the current White House is Republican.

Viki

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home