A Cynical Ploy?
Is it just me, or is there something that seems deeply cynical about the Democrats' strategy as outlined in this story -- to find and recruit disgruntled Iraq vets to run for office?
It seems clear that in certain segments of the Democratic Party, the most profound interest in soldiers is how to use them to gin up anti-war opinion in the United States. It's important to note that the vast majority of soldiers support the war effort, and that there will always be -- in any operation -- some percentage of its participants that will disagree with either the mission or how it's being executed.
Finding the disgruntled, and using them to promote an opinion that is frequently dismissed by the public when it comes from anyone other than a vet, does nothing to enhance the image of the military as a whole, does nothing to enhance the well-being (psychological or physical) or morale of the soldiers on the ground -- nor, really, does it speak well of those who are doing the complaining (unless they have a legitimate whistle-blowing issue). But, hey -- what do the Democrats care, so long as they can gain some seats and some power in the nation's capitol?
Certainly, everyone in America has a right to speak, but there's something just a little creepy about the Democratic efforts to tempt soldiers to become little John Kerry mini-mes. It's truly a cynical ploy. Will it work? I'm not so sure that it will. But it's interesting to see that a party that has frequently been deemed anti-military is willing to embrace soldiers -- so long as they are willing to repudiate their own mission.
It seems clear that in certain segments of the Democratic Party, the most profound interest in soldiers is how to use them to gin up anti-war opinion in the United States. It's important to note that the vast majority of soldiers support the war effort, and that there will always be -- in any operation -- some percentage of its participants that will disagree with either the mission or how it's being executed.
Finding the disgruntled, and using them to promote an opinion that is frequently dismissed by the public when it comes from anyone other than a vet, does nothing to enhance the image of the military as a whole, does nothing to enhance the well-being (psychological or physical) or morale of the soldiers on the ground -- nor, really, does it speak well of those who are doing the complaining (unless they have a legitimate whistle-blowing issue). But, hey -- what do the Democrats care, so long as they can gain some seats and some power in the nation's capitol?
Certainly, everyone in America has a right to speak, but there's something just a little creepy about the Democratic efforts to tempt soldiers to become little John Kerry mini-mes. It's truly a cynical ploy. Will it work? I'm not so sure that it will. But it's interesting to see that a party that has frequently been deemed anti-military is willing to embrace soldiers -- so long as they are willing to repudiate their own mission.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:14 AM
3 Comments:
Sorry Carol, we tried to find soldiers who wouldn't repudiate their missions...BUT THEY'RE ALL DEAD!!!!!!!!!! Silly, you forgot because we banned photos of coffins and bodies being shipped back home by the hundreds, remember?? Doesn't matter though, they're just unimportant poor people....and we didn't want to disturb you from your delusions!! Now you be a good girl and go back to getting all warm and tingly about that hot John Roberts!!
Is it just me or is there something that seems deeply cynical about the Republicans' strategy to try and align themselves with the sacrifice of American patriots?
We can start at the top with a President whose main political strategy when faced with a difficult campaign is to find a Viet Nam vet and slime him. John McCain--mentally unstable probably a traitor to other POWs. Max Cleland--blood brother with Osama bin Laden. John Kerry--let's get some of them cute Purple Heart band aids for our convention.
Following in the footsteps of our Dear Leader, we have Karl Rove and Scooter Libby who leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent in a time of war. Don't worry, though, they had a darn good reason for their actions--they were playing a game of cheap political payback.
Finally we have all of those good Republicans who waste no time blaming our troops for the Administration failures in Iraq. From right-wing Donald Rumsfeld to moderate Rudy Guiliani, whenever some problem occurs, it's never the administration's fault it's always those good for nothing soldiers who let us down.
Come on poison pero and orphan in bama, tell us how sliming Viet Nam vets enhances the image of the military as a whole. Explain how leaking Valerie Plame's identity enhances the well-being of the soliders on the ground. Tell us all how turning our troops into scape goats for an incompetent administration (who won't even fully fund the VA until shamed into it by Democrats) enhances the morale of soldiers on the ground.
Y'all keep trying to equate the President with the country and make questioning the war equivalent to turning on our troops. Sorry, that dog don't hunt.
Here, Here Mr. Twister. Well said. I heartily agree. It also goes beyond cynical into the realm of hypocritical to say there is something "creepy" about democrats aligning themselves with interested parties speaking out against the war. Since when is dissent "creepy"? Isn't this freedom what we are fighting for? Be that as it my, it is beyond bold to get sanctimonious about this after the disgusting "swift boat" episode of just a few short months ago. How is it that that was ok but this is wrong? Could someone please explain this to me? You can't have it both ways. You can't run a campaign of mercenary character assasination and expect to retain your moral authority afterwards.
Post a Comment
<< Home