City of Roses
Brad, incompetency or stupidity would work if their actions were from being incompetent or dumb but the fact is that many of their actions to undermine our forces in Iraq have been intentional and deliberate. When you say that our soldiers are over there, murdering civilians in their sleep, when you announce that the war is lost, when you tell the commanding general that you are not going to believe him no matter what he says before he says anything, you are not being incompetent. You are being deliberate. The democrats do not want any kind of victory or even positivity in Iraq as long as Bush or the Republicans are in power. Terrorist leaders use Democrat talking points in their propaganda. I believe they would welcome complete defeat in Iraq if it kept them in power. They do not support what is good for the country but only what is good for them. Like it or not, I call their actions treasonable.
CNN: August 16th, 2007
Well then, if you consider telling "the commanding general that you are not going to believe him no matter what he says before he says anything" (despite the fact the commanding general was reporting something the White House, and not he, himself, had written) as one of a list of actions you call "treasonable", then, by your logic, a majority of Americans, including myself, must be traitors in your view.
As for believing that the war is already lost militarily? I've believed that BEFORE we ever went to Iraq to begin with. Over 2/5 of Americans believe the war is already lost militarily, and many more believe the central problem in Iraq is that the Iraqi government doesn't seem to have any verve in getting to business and putting their country back together.
With all due respect, my friend, your views and reactions seem to parallel, even mimic, those of Rush Limbaugh's often, where as Limbaugh has grown increasingly desperate as of late to hold onto his relevance in influencing the political landscape and debate as he successfully did throughout the 90's, as he watches the party he deserves large credit for helping usher solid majorities over a decade ago suddenly implode and lose both its majorities last November, your comments also sound more desperate each time we talk.
Now, regarding your question over whether it was a good idea to bring up the Armenian genocide as Turkey is proving to be a decisive influence in how we go about diplomatically resolving matters in the region. OF COURSE NOT. Obviously it WAS genocide, and anyone who argues otherwise is a fool beyond all comprehension. Yet, I think it was a dumb idea strategically to try and excavate that hatchet all over again currently, and we need to approach this sensitive issue at a more relationally empathetic standpoint.
The point, however, is how you really just started this thread to try and single out one entire party for this dumb strategy, when as Local Rebel already pointed out the GOP, which also takes the issue of genocide seriously (Sam Brownback has been a leading voice regarding the Darfur conflict, which I commend him for) has ALSO had plenty of members involved in this latest campaign as well (about 1/3 of House Republicans sponsoring it) and so the issue obviously runs much deeper than mere party lines.
"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"