Pulling for the enemy

[satellite66]

Pulling for the Enemy
by Vasko Kohlmayer (more by this author)
Posted 10/11/2007 ET
Updated 10/11/2007 ET

Many preposterous accusations have been leveled against Rush Limbaugh during his career, but last week Representative Steve Israel (D-NY) made one that trumps them all. Speaking about the ‘phony soldier’ controversy, this is what he said on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives:

I can't think of a better example of giving aid and comfort to our enemies than somebody who would call our soldiers phony while they're fighting, who would attack them while they're defending us.

Rush Limbaugh helping our enemies? The sheer inanity of it aside, it is still remarkable that Steve Israel would so brazenly accuse Limbaugh of what Democrats are guilty of themselves.

There is by now an overwhelming body of evidence which shows that ever since the early days of the War on Terror Democrats have opposed the president in a manner that has tilted the scales in favor of our foes.

• They have repeatedly conceded defeat in Iraq with Harry Reid claiming ‘this war is lost;’
• They purposefully downplay any and all American military successes;
• They have sought to portray our troops as violent and brutal thugs;
• Jack Murtha accused our soldiers of being cold-blooded murderers while John Kerry alleged they terrorize women and children at night;
• Dick Durbin compared our military personnel to Nazis and Pol Pot’s henchmen;
• The have sought to paint our military commanders as stooges of a manipulative president (the Petraeus hearings);
• They have called our Commander-in-Chief ‘stupid,’ ‘loser,’ ‘incompetent;’
• They seek to extend constitutional protections to foreign terrorists and enemy combatants;
• They have outed and obstructed an important eavesdropping program designed to monitor terrorists’ phone calls and e-mails;
• They are trying to eliminate crucial components of the Patriot Act;
• They have repeatedly leaked classified information;
• They lobby for the release of most Guantanamo Bay detainees most of whom are dangerous terrorists;
• They have sought to destroy the reputation of the American military by making scandals out of minor incidents (Abu Ghraib);
• They have portrayed America’s main terrorist detention facility (Guantanamo Bay) as a torture chamber even though it is the most supervised and inspected prison in the history of warfare;
• By manufacturing bogus scandals they have seriously damaged their country’s reputation in a time of war;
• They have forced the resignation of an effective defense secretary (Donald Rumsfeld) and a number of other administration officials committed to winning this war;
• They visit and praise America’s enemies even those responsible for the deaths of American troops (Nancy Pelosi in Syria);
• Dennis Kucinich called the Iraq war ‘wrong’ and ‘immoral’ in the presence of Bashar Assad, the head of the Syrian regime that is a sponsor of terrorism
• They want to run and cut from the battlefield in the middle of a war.

And now the Democrats have added another black point to this list of infamy by calling into question Rush Limbaugh’s commitment to our troops. They could not have picked a worse target, since Limbaugh is one of our military’s most loyal friends.

Theirs was truly an ill-advised attempt, because – apart from having failed – it once again raised questions about why Democrats conduct themselves in the manner they do. Why do they behave in ways that are so obviously detrimental to the interests of their own country?

Many people have long been troubled by this question, but they have been unable to come up with a satisfactory explanation. I would suggest that the answer is the obvious. Judging by the overwhelming evidence of their deeds, Democrats want us to lose this war.

If you think this is too harsh of a statement, you only need to ask whether it would be even remotely possible to conclude that their actions are intended to help America win. And since no sensible person could come to this conclusion, the opposite must obviously be the case.

Our enemies clearly realize who their closest ally is which is why they so rejoiced over the outcome of the 2006 elections. From the caves of Afghanistan through the jihad cells in London to the torture houses in Iraq, terrorists all over the globe celebrated that event. So exhilarated were they that they even used the term ‘brotherly’ when speaking about their Democrat friends in America. This is what Falah Hassan Shanshal, a close associate of radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said:

We hope the Democrats don't forget their campaign promises. If they don't, we will deal with them in a brotherly way once the last American soldier pulls out from Iraq.

Those who still don’t see that Democrats do our enemies’ bidding just need to ask themselves this: If the terrorists were represented by a political party in America, how would their program substantially differ from that of present-day Democrats? Is it possible to think of more terrorist-friendly policies than those the Democrats have already come up with?

Have their actions given aid and comfort to the enemy, or have they not? Rush Limbaugh -- through his whole career -- has supported America and its troops. The Democrats attacking him would do better to recant their own outrageous slanders of our troops, their commanders and the mission they serve faithfully.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22770

[Bruce FLinch]

[millwright]

Hell, the Democrats even accused NASCAR of posing a 'bio-terrorism' threat.......

I've read the transcript and Rush, responding to a caller, was most particular in directing his 'phony soldier' comment agains one left coast individual and any 'fellow travelers' exposed in the media of late.

As for the Democratic position, or the actions by some Democrats - they're headline hogs. Like all politicians they don't give a damn who it hurts or what the consequences are outside of their personal objectives. With little or no record of accomplishment over the past decade, they've got to find - or manufacture - an "issue". Right now its Iraq. Soon it'll be Afghanistan, too.

Thanks to the MSM, we get to hear a great deal about deaths of U.S. soldiers, and the 'killing' of Iraqis, but damn little about the background and details of the incidents. Mostly, I'm convinced, because the details don't support the antis' anti-war objectives. Nor do we hear much about the the falsely-labeled "insurgents" role in the bloodshed for the same reasons. It wasn't an accident Al Quaida endorsed the concept of a H. Clinton Presidency...... >MW