|
Since Thanksgiving, the visits of President Bush and Senator Clinton to our troops overseas have been the subject of much debate and comparison. Frankly, I don't see any similarities between them. President Bush went to a place where his life would be in danger if his presence became known. Any enemy of America would go out of his or her way to spare Hillary's life in the desperate hope that she might try to run against him in 2004. Hillary and her entourage forced hungry soldiers to wait an extra hour for their dinner in Afghanistan while she and her entourage were served first. President Bush served the troops in Baghdad with his own hands, manning the mashed potatoes station. President Bush got standing ovations from the soldiers in Baghdad. Organisers had a hard time finding soldiers willing to have dinner with Hillary. Videos of her at the dinner table showed a soldier seated next to Hillary who seemed to avoid looking in her direction, even when reaching for a utensil near her. President Bush's speech was designed to raise the morale of the soldiers, and it did. Hillary's every word was designed to crush it, and we have yet to see the effect of that. Don't we have punishments for people who give aid and comfort to the enemy by deliberately hurting the morale of out troops? (Mildred Gillars, known as "Axis Sally", was sentenced to 10-30 years in prison, of which she served 12.) Telling the troops on the front lines that their number is inadequate, they can't win without UN involvement, their commander-in-chief is lying to them, the war in Iraq was the result of Bush's personal obsession, and that "the obstacles and problems are much greater than the administration usually admits to" is disheartening, if not an outright attempt to demoralise them. While in the Baghdad mess hall, President Bush posed for a picture with a decoration turkey on a platter (a tray full of turkey slices isn't worth photographing). Hillary's entire Middle East jaunt was a pose, a decoration. And anyone who doesn't see her visit for what it was -- a blatant attempt to undermine the morale of our soldiers putting their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan by trying to make them question their commander-in-chief while in a war zone under his orders -- is the turkey. |
| NA December 4, 2003 01:55 AM PST Excellent point as usual. Anyone trying to drag down the troops is disgusting, never mind a senator traveling several continents to do it! Off of the subject, I'm looking for a politically conservative documentary type movie having to do with guns or the USA, do you happen to know of any? (I thought you might be a good person to ask) | ||
| JM December 4, 2003 05:51 AM PST That's an interesting question. Wouldn't putting a political spin on a documentary make it no longer a documentary? Damn, I must be a conservative. Seriously, you could check out The Story of the Gun, available at the NRA online store here: http://store.nrahq.org/nra/product.asp?dept%5Fid=117&pf%5Fid=SS+22080 Unfortunately, its only on VHS. | ||
| NA December 4, 2003 09:49 AM PST Thanks for the help! I agree that any movie that's politically biased is not a documentary, but then how do you explain the "Best Documentary" oscar for Bowling for Columbine? It's not even factual, it's fradulent and it still won the thing. (That's why I need this video, I was asked to find a movie presenting an opposing position to Bowling.) Thanks, I knew you could help. | ||
| Name December 4, 2003 01:29 PM PST >how do you explain the "Best >Documentary" oscar for Bowling >for Columbine? One word: Liberals. They KNOW that facts don't matter, only feelings. The feelings in that travesty were exactly what the Liberals wanted. They don't want to be confused by facts. Personally, I agree with everything said in this editorial: http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/takingaim/idolworship.htm | ||
| Name December 5, 2003 02:11 PM PST I definitely enjoyed that editorial, thanks a bunch. | ||
| Leave a Comment: |