Lincoln, RFK were anti-war 'traitors,' too

Morons like to make statements like the title to this piece. Thank God, as Americans, they have the right and the pulpit to utter such crap. Also, thank God they're saying it in America or otherwise the pulpit from which they preach would be kicked away and the rope around their neck would break their fall.

Deseret Morning News, Sunday, April 29, 2007
Lincoln, RFK were anti-war 'traitors,' too
By Lee BensonDeseret Morning News

Amid all the protests, anti-protests and anti-protest protests accompanying
Vice President Dick Cheney's visit to Provo this week, Utah Attorney General
Mark Shurtleff got so caught up with microphone fever that he forgot his manners and lost his sense of history all at the same time.
In a speech at a pro-Cheney rally, the A.G. compared the anti-war rants of Rocky Anderson and Harry Reid to fabled war propagandists Tokyo Rose and Hanoi Hannah, calling the mayor of Salt Lake and the majority leader of the U.S. Senate "Iraqi Rocky" and "Hezbollah Harry," respectively.

He said they are aiding the enemy by suggesting we are losing the
war.

OK, forget that we are losing the war and forget that we're not even
real sure who the enemy is and even forget Shurtleff's lapsing into trash talk,
an art form I've always, where appropriate, rather enjoyed.

We’re losing the war Lee? We don’t know who the enemy is? Military expert, are you, eh? Or do you have military experts who aren’t disgruntled ex’s or trying to make a buck, who back you up? Besides, Harry didn't suggest that we are losing the war. He stated we were losing the war.

But what's with calling American politician war protesters traitors?

Disagreeing with this country's warfaring is as American as changing
your own oil.

Disagreeing, yes. Giving support to the enemy, especially as a Democratic leader of the Senate, is a tad different. Nice touch, that "changing your own oil" thing in place of "as American as apple pie". Really puts the war in context for you, doesn't it Lee.

Here are five names for Shurtleff: William Franklin, Abraham Lincoln,
Thomas Brackett Reid, Woodrow Wilson and Bobby Kennedy.

The thing they all have in common: All were war protesters.

William Franklin was governor of New Jersey when he protested the
Revolutionary War (and lost his job) in 1776 — much to the chagrin of his
father, Benjamin Franklin.

Ah, William had his reasons for being anti-war as the American colonial administrator and the last of the royal governors of New Jersey. He chose to support Great Britain throughout the American Revolution. His father, Ben Franklin, refused to support or speak to him the rest of his life. Words have meaning and actions have consequences Lee.

Abraham Lincoln was a U.S. congressman from Illinois in 1846 when he
protested President James K. Polk's Mexican-American war, calling Polk "a
bewildered, confounded and miserably perplexed man."

Lincoln called Polk's justification of the war unconstitutional, unnecessary and expensive, calling Polk "a bewildered, confounded and miserably perplexed man." Long way, even by Internet standards, from aiding and abetting the enemy. Lee, tell us just how anti-war Lincoln was after the "unprovoked" attack on Fort Sumter. This anti-war hero of yours didn't even have box cutter murderers slitting the throats of passengers and using the high jacked vehicles to murder more than 3,000 innocent civilians to blame for declaring war. Maybe he should have talked them to death, because there surely wasn't a military solution. Which was Lincoln Lee, anti war or craven war monger just looking for an excuse to wage war?

Thomas Brackett Reid of Maine was speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives
in 1898 when he resigned in protest of the Spanish-American war.

Resigned in protest? Don't get my hopes up Lee. Do you think Harry has that much moral conviction? Nah, neither do I.

Woodrow Wilson won the presidency in 1916 on the strength of an anti-war
campaign to keep America out of World War I (and a year later sent us into it
anyway).

And after Wilson entered the US into the war the effort became a bi-partisan effort to win with the Republicans winning control of the House of Representatives and the Senate in 1918. Bi-partisan Lee. When the troops were in the field. Are you seeing a difference here Lee.

Bobby Kennedy was a U.S. senator from New York in 1968 when he called for a
return of troops from Vietnam and declared his candidacy for the presidency
occupied by Vietnam supporter and fellow Democrat, Lyndon Johnson.

RFK in most of his campaign speeches in 1968 called for “peace” in Vietnam, offering a “negotiated settlement, but did not as belittle our troops or our effort. How ironic that you use RFK in your argument when it was Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian terrorist who assassinated Bobby Kennedy.

These men are not alone. American politicians have been protesting wars
since America started fighting in them. Even entering World War II wasn't
unanimous. When Congress voted on Dec. 8, 1941, 388 voted yes to one no from
avowed pacifist Jeannette Rankin of Montana.

She might have been unpopular, but she sure wasn't Tokyo Rose.

"As a woman, I can't go to war and I refuse to send anyone else. I vote 'NO'". However she did not vote against declaring war on Germany and Italy following their declaration of war on the U.S. Instead, she voted merely "Present."

That was "Present" Lee, not "The war is lost". That was a "No" vote to declare war, not a "You're a stupid man because I am smarter than you and you're not listening to me. I want the power" type of statement that makes the enemy think we don't have resolve as a nation.

Oh, and she didn't run next time. Maybe Harry shouldn't.

Words have meaning as do actions.

Whatcha think Lee?

Warren Oates on IraqFreedom

COLBEE: We got to stand along side of 'em so that someday they can stand alone. We ain't gonna run are we Chris?

CHRIS: Hell no.

Blood for Votes

People do not want more leaders and elected officials that plan secret draconian health plans, that spend our money like drunks in Tijuana and treat our soldiers like temporary employees. Yep, people are ready for leaders and elected officials that remember who remember who put them there and that remember who's paying the bill.

Clinton Denounces 'Mission Accomplished'

Her voice raspy from days of campaigning, Clinton brought delegates to
their feet when she said she wished she could turn the clock back to a different
time.

"Somebody said to me that he wished we could just rewind the 21st century and just eliminate the Bush-Cheney administration, with all their mistakes and
misjudgments," she said to cheers. "People are ready for leaders who understand
it is our votes who put them in power, our tax dollars that pay the bills."

She lambasted the "Mission Accomplished" speech nearly four years ago,
in which Bush declared an end to major military actions in Iraq. He made the
comment while on the deck of an aircraft carrier off the California coast.

That speech, Clinton said, was "one of the most shameful episodes in
American history. ... The only mission he accomplished was the re-election of
Republicans."

I've worked for Republicans and the Republican Party and Republicans blew it. They didn't blow it in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they did screw the pooch in the Pentagon and the Old Executive Building when they failed to fully understand what the troops and the people needed. Both were and are ready to get the job done if they only knew what the job is.

Republicans blew it when, once in power, they became Democrats. They played the same "get everything in my district or state named after me" pork game. They became "statesmen", or actually "statespersons", to win over the press and blunt their "anti-intellectual" perception. They may have worked hard, but they forgot who they were working for.

Mizz Clinton speaks of "one of the most shameful episodes" in a non-Jolson patois to give it due gravitas. Republicans can counter with many more shameful episodes, while republicans snark about blue dresses, noting such Clintonian issues as the failure of of pre-9/11 intelligence as seen by the Berger burglaries, their abuse of power, their pursuit of race and class warfare, their desire for socialized medicine and other programs, and the whole Evita complex.

President Bush has many failures, but he has been resolute on the GWOT, taxes and the court. Not bad, but, as they say, "a day late and a dollar short", because even at this late date most Americans don't think that.

If the people, actually the voter, believes that elected politicians will remember who put them there, those voters will vote for them. Not, as the cynics say, because the elected officials will bring the bling home, but because those elected are doing what is best for the Republic.

A minority believed in the formation of this nation, a minority believed in the equality of all men, a minority believed in the Reagan Revolution, a minority believed in the Contract With America and now a minority believe in the future of America. In each case, what made these things possible is that a majority hoped they would work.

If politicians sincerely put ideals into action the people will follow. If the people believe that politicians care only about elections, voters will wonder why they should care.

Somebody once said to me that they wished they could erase the embarrassment that led America in the last eight years of the 20th century. I told them that wishing against reality wasn't realistic, but my daughter was 15 years of age at the time, not a Presidental candidate.

The most shameful episode in this minor episode of Ms Clinton's quest for power is her flippant and political slur that President Bush, and thousands in his administration, used soldier's blood merely to re-elect Republicans.

I am still waiting for an electable politician for President that personifies Ms Clinton's ideal of a leader who understands who voted them into power and who also remembers that the taxpayer pays the bills. I don't need a cynic who recounts the "most shameful episodes" to cover their own and I also do not need a politician that treats the voter, the soldier, the taxpayer and the citizen as their "little people".

Of course, that is the Liberal problem in that they vote people into power, they don't elect people to represent the power of the people. Maybe Republicans should remember that as well.