How the left supports our troops

Keep an eye out for this to wander on through the halls of Congress.

Dear Mr. President,

We write to urge you to take immediate steps to begin the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

Although the initial invasion of Iraq may have occurred with minimal troop deaths, the subsequent occupation of the country has been anything but successful. Already more than 1,300 American troops have lost their lives since the war began on March 19, 2003. At least 10,000 American troops have been injured as well, and it is impossible to know exactly how many thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed. Despite the enormity of the war�s casualties, the Iraqi insurgency continues to grow stronger with every passing day.

Iraq is no closer to becoming a stable democracy today than it was two years ago, as evidenced in recent weeks by the daily torrent of insurgent attacks on American forces and Iraqi civilian leaders.

Again, while it may be logistically difficult to immediately remove every American soldier, we urge you to take immediate action to begin the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. This is the only way to truly support our troops. Thank you for your consideration of this request.


Rep. Lynn Woolsey

That is the partial text of a letter that is being sent to the Oval Office on behalf of some of the Democrats in the House. The list of those Representatives is at the bottom of that letter. Check to see if you recognize any of the names.

At the ardently left wing website and Democrat mouth piece, Common Delusions, ummm, I mean Common Dreams, Norman Soloman comments on this letter.

Sixteen members of the U.S. House of Representatives launched an initiative in that direction on Jan. 12 with a letter to President Bush urging him “to take immediate steps to begin the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.”

Led by Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California, the signers contended: “It has become clear that the existence of more than 130,000 American troops stationed on Iraqi soil is infuriating to the Iraqi people — especially because Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction and did not have a connection to the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, or to the al Qaeda terrorist organization. Indeed, the very presence of Americans in Iraq is a rallying point for dissatisfied people in the Arab world.”

Few media outlets beyond California did any substantive reporting on the letter. But it could turn out to be an initial step on a long journey for efforts to achieve a congressional cutoff of funds for the Iraq war. Such efforts can only be successful if immense grassroots pressure develops to compel members of Congress to take action.

Rep. Woolsey is set to take another step by introducing a resolution in the House of Representatives calling for U.S. troops to come home from Iraq as soon as logistically possible. Her office told me on Jan. 19 that Woolsey’s resolution — still in draft form and not yet circulated to House members — was scheduled to be introduced in late January.

Their basic plan of attack seems to be, �get the troops out now or we�ll fight funding the effort�.

Way to support the troops there, jackass!

Of course, those of us on the right have known that the left�s weakly spoken �We Support Our Troops� line was a load of horse hockey.

They support the troops as long as those troops have low pay, low morale, out of date equipment and are sitting around doing very little so that the Dems can use them as a test bed for social engineering.

Bush is getting set to ask for another special appropriation of $80 Billion to fund Iraq, Afghanistan and some things here at home. Of course, you might not know that the money was going somewhere other than Iraq if you listen to the nightly news.

Make sure that any of these chuckleheads who are from your state get a verbal kick in the pants for their now barely invisible disdain for our fighting men and women.

This entry was posted in Freaks, Mutants, and Morons. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to How the left supports our troops

  1. TempeCarl says:

    RE: “But it could turn out to be an initial step on a long journey for efforts to achieve a congressional cutoff of funds for the Iraq war.”

    Are there solid indications that such an ultimatum is being given?

    Also, as a Democrat, I hold no “disdain” for American troops. Quite the opposite, in fact. I think most Democrats believe this this war was unnecessary, and we will not be able to have much influence in terms of nation building, and that is why they want the soldiers to come home.

    I personally believe that as long as the troops are there, they should get the best weapons, armor, medical care, food and other necessities that America can provide.

    Personally, I have a hard time seeing how our presence there will have a positive effect. It seems that after the elections, there will be civil war, which we have learned is very difficult to deal with.

    At this point, It seems like things are a big mess over there. I’m not advocating leaving, but I can understand some people raising that as a possibility.


  2. AnalogKid says:

    Heya Carl, I don�t see the RE�d line your talking about, but I think the information contained in the links are proof that this funding will be fought as much as these Dems can manage.

    Also, I think you are misunderstanding my implication. Not all Dems are on the left, but all of those on the left in Congress are Dems.

    That and any Dem on this list supporting Woosley does not support the soldiers by demanding a timeline (or exit strategy, for that matter).

    As for your words on a �civil war�, that is what is currently going on. The Baathists vs the jihadis vs America and the democratic Iraqis. If we leave, the first two groups will go after the democratic Iraqis and once they put an end to them, they�ll go after each other.

    We will probably never leave Iraq. Thoughts of a complete pull out are a fantasy. Iraq will be the next South Korea. Bases and jump off points are already being constructed for our future use. Iraq will have it�s own government and army, but we will be needing to get out of Turkey soon and Iraq is a good 2nd place.

  3. TempeCarl says:

    That is very strange that the line that I copied and pasted is not there now. Does anyone else edit your posts? Since I pasted it rather than typed it, I’m pretty sure that I took it from somewhere.

    Two questions:

    What was the real reason, in your opinion, that America went to war with Iraq? And I’m not looking for the answer to be “oil.” Power, maybe.

    In the vein of “hindsight has 20-20 vision,” could America have done a better job at addressing this goal?

    Also, I don’t see how putting a timeline on the war necessarily has to mean a lack of support for the troops. If I were a soldier in Iraq, I would feel supported knowing that someone is working to put my task on a schedule with a date for finishing the job and coming home. To me, saying that we will probably never leave Iraq is the last thing a soldier would want to hear.


  4. AnalogKid says:

    In my opinion, we went to war in Iraq to 1. Secure permanent bases for our troops in that region, 2. To remove a dictator who, in less than a decades time, threaten to destabilize the entire region, if not the world, 3 The possibility of WMD�s, and 4. To secure an oil supply as the House of Saud is digging themselves a hole with their support of the jihadis.

    There are a number of other smaller reasons that aren�t right on the top of my head.

    As for the timeline, remember to look at the extension notices that the current crop of soldiers are getting and what they do to their moral. Now think about a timeline that encompasses the whole operation, what you�ll have is the insurgents sitting around waiting for the projected date to strike.

    And if it goes over its projected date, not only will you have a large number of pissed off soldiers, you�ll have an entire political party screaming �neener, neener, you�re a failure and a liar� to Bush.

    The fact is, Iraq is going to be the next South Korea. Anyone who cannot see that now isn�t looking hard enough or doesn�t know what to look for. There are plenty of smaller dates that serve as a timeline. This Sunday (Saturday night to us in America) is one of the projected dates, the handover was another. I expect another date/goal set after the elections are done with.

  5. TempeCarl says:

    I think you have a very accurate analysis there.

    Why couldn’t the American people be told this upfront?


Comments are closed.