Message of division

  • Follow Editorials

Valentine's Day is coming up. Maybe Democrats in the U.S. Senate could just send a Candygram to our enemies in Iraq.

That's essentially what they're doing by drafting a resolution publicly opposing the U.S. strategy in Iraq.

Unbelievable. Could the Founders - the very men who brought forth the First Amendment - have ever, ever imagined the U.S. Senate publicly voting against the United States in a war?

How could such a statement possibly help the nation's war effort? It seems intended to do the opposite.

And once and for all, senators will demonstrate - painfully, embarrassingly - that one cannot say he supports our troops but not what they're doing. The two are one and the same.

The vote is politically motivated - meaning Democrats are trying to score political points on the backs of our servicemen and women.

"Such a vote puts many Republicans in an uncomfortable position," says one news report.

Only if they let it.

It tells you something that in 2007, it actually takes chutzpah for members of Congress to come out in support of the United States in wartime!

The truth is, you don't have to support President Bush to support our troops. You may not agree with his decision to fortify our presence in Iraq, but all Americans should pull for them - and, yes, the strategy - now that the decision has been made.

The nonbinding resolution, ironically, would say that "it is not in the national interest." They don't know that. Nobody does. But what we do know is that the U.S. Senate would not be acting in the national interest by sending the loudest message yet to our enemies that we are divided and uncommitted to this fight.

And how cynical for the Democratic leadership to schedule the resolution's debate near the State of the Union address next Tuesday.

The state of the union, if the resolution in the U.S. Senate is any indication, is not good.

Comments (8) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 01/19/07 - 09:43 am
There are Republicans in the

There are Republicans in the United States Senate who oppose any
escalation of the war in Iraq. Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe are two.
One can absolutely support the troops but not what they are doing. The troops
must follow the orders of their Commander-in-Chief. Two thirds of
Americans do not support President Bush's decision to escalate the war
in Iraq. Furthermore, it is possible to approve funds to keep U.S.
military members safe and to get them out of harm's way without
increasing funding to further escalate this war. Bush will soon be back
again asking for more than a $100 billion dollars of additional "emergency spending"
to supplement the $70 billion he has already received this fiscal year.
On March 20, 2007 this war will be 4 years old. How much more money and
have many more American lives will we throw down this rat hole of a
failed war? Dr. Bush's prescription for more bandages is the wrong
treatment for Iraq's heart condition. Why don't we bring our troops
home to be with their sweethearts on Valentine's Day! Escalating the
failed war in Iraq by sending more Americans and expanding the war to
Iran is not in our national interest. It is nothing but a strategy for
heart break and bankruptsy.

3M3T1B 01/19/07 - 10:07 am
The 'Editorial Staff' once

The 'Editorial Staff' once again stands on only a portion of the facts. This resolution is not against the troops. It is against a failed policy and Mr Bush's continued refusal to listen to the American people or the advice and recommendations of respected military and civilian advisors. The 'Staff' failed to mention that 70% of American citizens and several republicans also disagree with the present course Mr Bush has chosen. Opinion or action opposing Mr Bush's policies in Iraq is not opposition to the American Soldier as the "Staff" regularly insinuates; it is opposition to needless sacrifice of human life in a war that will come to no good end.

giveitsomethought 01/19/07 - 10:54 am
This editorial was written

This editorial was written with the blood of the young for it is only the young that suffer from poor unlearned leadership. Yes it is their right to be and to write whatever they choose. It is the veterans of this nation that have died or became disabled and some have grown older then their years because of war. For those of you that cheapen the adage of I'm a veteran or I'm a Vietnam Veteran to make yourself more believable, shame, make yourself believable through your statement. For those of you that must use disparaging personal remarks against others, think! don't become part of the problem.

msitua 01/19/07 - 10:57 am
You seem to forget that we

You seem to forget that we entered Iraq under false pretenses. They were no WMD's so why are we still there? We support our troops, you betcha. Let's bring them home and save their lives. That's real support!
Since we entered Iraq 3 years ago, it has now become a breeding place for more terrioists. The whole world hates us there,; the majority of Americans hate us there-let's move on and leave Bush's mistakes back in Iraq.

Miss Mary
Miss Mary 01/19/07 - 11:23 am
Okay, Oz and John, where's

Okay, Oz and John, where's your crystal ball? How do you know for sure that this is a "strategy for heartbreak and bankruptcy"? How do you know that this is "a war that will come to no good end"? A cursory reading of any good history book will tell you that many Americans hated Lincoln, FDR, and their war policies, and they made the same dire predictions you do. THEY WERE WRONG. YOU MIGHT BE, TOO. As someone with loved ones fighting in this war, may I respectfully ask you to get behind our war effort and urge your Democrat leaders to do the same? It's IMPORTANT that we win, and our enemies take much comfort in the loud, divisive hysteria they hear from us about Iraq, which is, IMO, one of the points in the editorial. My grandmother, who lost a son in WWII and had to send two others to fight in it, HATED FDR and even felt he knew about Pearl Harbor long before it happened. But she kept her mouth shut, except to family. Why? My dad said, "Well, she didn't want to hurt her country" (exact words). Now that's class! Go ahead and tear into me. I probably won't read it; I have to go to work. Just think about what I said. Think about my grandmother, the anti-Sheehan.

jack 01/19/07 - 01:14 pm
In response to John long name

In response to John long name cain, please do not identify Chuck Hagel or Olympia Snow as Republicans. They are RINOs, just like the jackass from SC named Graham.

markwardlaw 01/19/07 - 03:01 pm
I've been reading this

I've been reading this paper's editorials since last October, when its editors warned of the inherent dangers to our country should Pelosi and the America-hating Democrats become the majority party eager to usher in "San Francisco values." Among the many papers I read, I know of none whose editorial board is so mind-numbingly conservative as this one. I am thrilled to see so many good Americans in the southeast raising their voices against lockstep acquiescence to the corrupt Bush administration and their illicit war of choice. We've had enough of their lies. And, speaking of lies, two words that never should be used when discussing this war are 'victory' and 'strategy.' The only operative strategy in effect is the neo-con passion for perpetual war and an imperialistic America.

patriciathomas 01/19/07 - 03:47 pm
markwardlaw, there are

markwardlaw, there are seventeen left wing liberals in the southeast. Six of them are literate and send in the same letters over and over regardless of the subject. I guess if you are persistent enough and loud enough it seems like "so many good Americans". To the rest of us it seems like redundant and noisy.

Back to Top
Search Augusta jobs
Top headlines
Crash kills Augusta man, 57
The coroner says an autopsy is planned, possibly Friday, into the death of an Augusta man killed Wednesday night in a single-car accident.