Tom Daschle...

[Jenzebelle]

That is how I see it. Saddam thinks war is ill-times as do many Democrats. So, the two are thinking alike on that topic.

So you're comparing people who are opposed to the war with Saddam?
And there are people who are not Democrats that are not for this war. My ex-military Republican husband is one of them. Is he part of the thinking like Saddam group? Or is he excluded because he's a Republican?

There will always be people who protest wars. Just like there will always be people who think the solution is to bomb the hell out of anyone who disagrees with us. That's the beauty of having a country that allows free thought and free speech - we are able to decide for ourselves what we agree with. That doesn't make us armchair Presidents. It's what makes us free thinking intelligent creatures.

I find it very hard not to chuckle at those contradicting themselves when they say they support our troops, but not the war. It's not possible to really do both!

How is it not possible? I know people in the armed forces currently that don't agree with the decision to go to war, but they pledged to defend this country right or wrong. You can support the men and women who are fighting for our freedom, without agreeing for the reason why they are fighting.

 

[jamsmom]

Yes, if anyone opposes war, then on THAT SPECIFIC topic, they agree with Saddam. He opposes war, to. So they both oppose war.

I am not saying that anyone who opposes war agrees with Saddam on everything.

 

[Nancy]

It is because we are a free nation that all can express their believes. I don't have to agree with them, but that is what makes this nation what it is. If our wonderful Senator happened to be in Iraq and one of Saddams officers he would not even be alive anymore.

So I get angry over the protesters, but that is their right, just as it is my right to protest them..
So I will NOt be watching the Oscars because it has been reported that we will be hearing anti-war statements. I turned off the Grammys for that reason. I also choose not to support those actors and actresses speaking out by no longer watching their shows or seeing their movies. That is my choice as an American because I am free to do so.

I would never tell someone that "if you don't like it here leave" We are Americans and we have the right free speech.

 

[AirForceRocks]

I find it very hard not to chuckle at those contradicting themselves when they say they support our troops, but not the war. It's not possible to really do both!

Sorry, but I absolutely disagree with this statement. I see zero contradiction in saying "I don't like this war, I don't want us to go to war, and I think it is a huge mistake. However, I fully support our troops in that if we are going to war, I want them to do well and take care of themselves, and get home safe, sound, and as soon as possible."

I think it would do us all good to remember that the reason our troops are over there right now is to ensure that we all keep the right to speak our mind, whether it is popular or not.

 

[CarolA]

I came up with a great reply, but decided on this.

I am secure in my patriotism. I fully support our soldiers. I don't want to watch young people die. I am not convinced by what President Bush has said. That's all.

I persnally think that suggesting that someone who does not agree with the President be shipped out of the country is someting I would have expected to see in other countries (notice how the USSR and China excile dissendents) and am very saddened to see this level of bigotry here.

What you think of me is your problem not mine.

 

[caitycaity]

i agree with afr and carol a. i am against the war, but i currently have two soldiers that i am sending things to thanks to someone on this board. i certainly do support all our troops.

bsnyder i know this is a volunteer army, and i know that most if not all soldiers over there support the war. i do not think hoping they come home alive and trying to make their time over there as comfortable as possible by sending care packages has anything to do with my opinins on the politics of this war. the reality is that they are there, fighting for our country and the things our country stands for. i may be against the politics of it, but i certainly do support our troops as fellow americans, just like i am able to love and support friends and family members here who disagree with me on this issue.

mamajoan, i hope if you care about that friendship you really fight to keep it. i know it is not easy, but i recently had a fight with a person i am friends with on this issue as well. i am very happy that we were able to come to a mutual and respectful agree to disagree. i know it's hard but hang in there.

 

[AirForceRocks]

mamajoan, i hope if you care about that friendship you really fight to keep it. i know it is not easy, but i recently had a fight with a person i am friends with on this issue as well. i am very happy that we were able to come to a mutual and respectful agree to disagree. i know it's hard but hang in there.

Ditto.

 

[bsnyder]

I don't think I made myself clear in what I posted...

I totally agree with the right to say whatever you want, about the war, or any other topic. And I don't agree with the sentiments that those that don't agree with the President should go live in Iraq, or should leave the country. That's not what this country is about, obviously.

But many of those who are against the war, but are supporting our troops, take great pains to throw in the statement that the troops are only following orders. Why is that? What does that have to do with their support of the troops? Could it be that they have a harder time supporting them if they think the individual soldiers actually agree with the war? Maybe it's not even a concious thing, I don't know, but I do know I've seen many statements like that.

And as to the original topic of this post, Tom Dashle....yes, he has the right to say whatever he wants. However, it's my opinion (and I'm entitled to mine) that he is only doing so to score political points, which to me is a pretty low blow on the eve of war.

 

[caitycaity]

Could it be that they have a harder time supporting them if they think the individual soldiers actually agree with the war?

that's not the case for me (speaking only for myself here).

And as to the original topic of this post, Tom Dashle....yes, he has the right to say whatever he wants. However, it's my opinion (and I'm entitled to mine) that he is only doing so to score political points, which to me is a pretty low blow on the eve of war.

if he's doing it to score political points that's pretty dumb b/c whose points is he going to score? i don't pretend to know what's in tom's heart. if he was doing it solely for political reasons, i'd agree with you. i just don't see how he could be winning any political points with that kind of statement.

 

[mamajoan]

Thanks guys.. for the support... I am working hard to try to open up the lines of communication with this friend of 15 years. I am just very, very.. sad about it all.

Politics is a very difficult subject to discuss, however I feel it is extremely important to do so.

Do you ever wonder what Iraqi mothers are thinking right now?
I realize that life in general is very, very different in the Middle East. However.. a mom is a mom anywhere you put her.


I was also thinking that if Mr. Bush wanted to put a better "spin" on this aggressive action he may want to start saying

"The Liberation of Iraq" instead of "war". I know this is just another way of dealing with the same action, but once in a while the newscasters will mention that Iraqi troops are ready to surrender and that Iraqi families are just waiting for this war to start and get over with as they are not all united with Saddam.

 

[UncleKyle]

I didn't bother reading all of the arguments on the post, just had to share one of my fav websites that I contribute too.

dumpdaschle.org

 

[AmyA]

Originally posted by bsnyder

But many of those who are against the war, but are supporting our troops, take great pains to throw in the statement that the troops are only following orders. Why is that? What does that have to do with their support of the troops? Could it be that they have a harder time supporting them if they think the individual soldiers actually agree with the war?

I am totally against the war, however I support both those military members who are fighting this war solely because they are ordered to and those military members who are fighting this war because they think it is absolutely necessary. I don't care what a military member's personal motivations are.

I think that comment is often thrown in because even those of us who are adamantly anti-war want it made clear that despite the military being solely volunteer (at this time) military members will never be blamed for a decision they had no control over. That, in fact, our argument is specifically with the current presidential administration.

 

[DonnaS]

Originally posted by AmyA
I am totally against the war, however I support both those military members who are fighting this war solely because they are ordered to and those military members who are fighting this war because they think it is absolutely necessary. I don't care what a military member's personal motivations are.

I totally agree with this and thank AFR for her excellent post.

 

[JohnTBap]

LOL! You know, I get that all the time. Parents say, "I don't support this reading thing that you are trying to put over on the kids, but - by gum - I support you as a teacher!"

 

[TRAPPED-PARENT]

Regarding the original post ... I think Tom Daschle's remarks were motivated by politics and trying to reassert himself as a power player in Washington. I'm not sure what he hoped to achieve by the remarks or the timing of them, but I think it backfired!!!

 

[DawnCt]

Originally posted by TRAPPED-PARENT
Regarding the original post ... I think Tom Daschle's remarks were motivated by politics and trying to reassert himself as a power player in Washington. I'm not sure what he hoped to achieve by the remarks or the timing of them, but I think it backfired!!!

I think you are right but I also think that there is a serious character flaw when a U.S. Senator flails so outrageously at the President during this time of conflict. He is certainly as embarrassing as Trent Lott. Maybe he needs to be invited to step down? If he isn't that is fine with me. Democrats need to ask themselves if he is the one to lead their party.

 

[Galahad]

OK, for those that are "against the war" but "support the troops". Does your support of the troops go so far as to hope they win? It seems to me that "supporting the troops" but being against their mission would mean that you may not hope that they win.

Support for the troops, IMO, means you also hope that they succeed in their mission. And since a part of their mission in the near term is to kill people and break things, then you also need to hope they kill more people and break more things that the other side does. Like Patton said: "No poor dumb b*****d ever won a war by dying for his country. You win a war by making the other poor dumb b*****d die for his country."

 

[DawnCt]

Originally posted by Galahad
OK, for those that are "against the war" but "support the troops". Does your support of the troops go so far as to hope they win? It seems to me that "supporting the troops" but being against their mission would mean that you may not hope that they win.

That is a great question Galahad! I don't think that the 101st Airborne is going into Iraq singing Kumbaya and hoping for a group hug! You can't support the troops unless you support their victory!

 

[Patch'sD]

Tom Daschle is the main reason the republicans did so well in the last election. He is a man of no action who will just complain and whine to get his point across. The man is such an idiot he just says Bush screwed up, but can't even entertain us with what he would have done differently. Tom Daschle is the republicans secret weapon. He should run for President on the West Wing.

 

[caitycaity]

Originally posted by Galahad
OK, for those that are "against the war" but "support the troops". Does your support of the troops go so far as to hope they win? It seems to me that "supporting the troops" but being against their mission would mean that you may not hope that they win.

if war is inevitable (which i think it is), i hope that it will be over as quickly as possible and that we will suffer minimal loss of life. so yes, i guess i do hope they "win."

Support for the troops, IMO, means you also hope that they succeed in their mission. And since a part of their mission in the near term is to kill people and break things, then you also need to hope they kill more people and break more things that the other side does.

i don't think that they need to kill a large number of people to "win" in this particular instance. i hope neither side kills many people.