Get your discounted ads now

[Murffieus]

You say the NYTimes ad on Gen Patraeus was OK----I supposed if you are a left winger it is OK----but the left wing continually aids and abets the enemy with it's excessive criticism of the war. Just hang in there long enough and the left wing will convince the US population to quit----just like in Sudan, Lebanon, and Vietnam!

Criticism that is acceptable or non acceptable is in the eye of the beholder----IMO the fine line here is distinguished by the criticism that gives aid and comfort to the enemy----and that point has clearly been breached by the left wing.

Do you deny that Al Quida & Iran are our enemies?---- how does giving aid and comfort and comfort to the enemy help us?

[tower912]

Murf, how can opposition to the war in Iraq for the last 5 years (do the math) because, a, it took away from securing Afhanistan and capturing and b, being convinced 6 months before we went in that there were no WMD's, no nukes, and no ties to al qaeda (our real enemy) equate with aiding the enemy?   I wanted al qaeda smashed and bin Laden captured.   There wasn't aq in Iraq until months after we invaded.    How can being outraged over the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 equal abetting the enemy?  How can supporting the troops in many ways both physical and metaphysical while decrying the policy that put them there give solace to the enemy?    Keep lashing out.   

[Murffieus]

Why we went into Iraq is irrelavant at this point as we are there now----the Congress voted overwhelmingly for it, Tony Blair was 100% behind it, Hillary & Bill Clinton were behind it----just about everyone was behind it because they ALL saw the same evidence!

Right now Al Quida is in Iraq big time----they have been the main cause behind the sectarian violence (remember the mosque in Samarra?). If they succeed in pushing us out of Iraq they gain IMMENSE credibility in the Arab world and therefore make it much more difficult for us in Afghanistan and everywhere else to eliminate or even control the movement.

Being vehemently critical of the war (Reid & Pelosi) gives aid and comfort to Al Quida and also serves to undermine our troops morale. Meanwhile, we have to win there----we have no choice!

BTW----terrorism isn't confined to Al Quida-----Saddam Hussein was the biggest terrorists of them all-----Ahmadinejad is next!

[nathanziarek]

Eh. Murf has been copying and pasting the same line for at least a year now.

It all comes down to the same thing: the only way to win this war is to stay the course. There are no other options, no other avenues we should consider in the least.

If you do wish to consider another option, you are an unpatriotic, treacherous liberal, who has no understanding of how the real world works and should just keep your mouth shut.

Murf may be the only person on the planet to understand islamofascism, but he sure doesn't understand democracy or free speech.

"Provide aid and comfort to the enemy"? What does that even mean??

[Murffieus]

Free speech-----most anything CAN be said----but SHOULD it be said and to what extent should it be said----that's the question. I don't see anything wrong with having Ahmadinejad at Columbia answering tough questions, but I do see spomething very wrong with Gen Petraeus being depicted as a traitor during wartime in a full page ad in the nations most visible newspaper!

"Aid and comfort to the enemy" means----giving the enemy hope and motivation to the extent that they can see light at the end of the tunnel. In this case "light at the end of the tunnel" to Al Quida and Iran is the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq where Al Quida gains substantial additional credibility in the Arab world and a free haven while Iran picks up the pieces and gains more influence in the region and control over Iraqi oil----"islamofacism alright"!

Surrender via withdrawal makes our job in the war on terror much tougher down the road----you make a decision to go to war----you see it through to its conclusion !

[nathanziarek]

Who decides what SHOULD be said and to what extent? You? The government? This doesn't sound at all totalitarian to you?

I'm not going to argue the war with you, because you are arguing emotion and I know I don't know enough to be fair. I do know -- even within very knowledgeable, respected people -- that agreement on the proper course of action is impossible to find.

Yet, you believe that all public discourse should be shelved because it makes the enemy feel all warm and cozy? When a liberal president does something you disagree with, will support the same measures to limit dissent?

[Murffieus]

I never said that "all public discourse should be shelved"----where do you get that?

I say above that criticism of the war or how it is being run is every citizen's right-----but to portray a highly respected general who was confirmed unanimously by congress as a "traitor" in a full page ad in the most visible print news source in America is dispicitable-----meanwhile you haven't denounced it!

What Harry Reid and Pelosi are doing is far from "public discourse" on the war----they are obsessed with the war at the expense of a normal legislative agenda-----even as things get significantly better they are obsessed (continues to give aid & confort to the enemy when we have them on the run). Meanwhile nothing gets done like social security reform, Medicare reform, Which outside of the war on terrorism are the two things that threaten America's future----that's why this congress has the lowest rating of any congress in history----they are in the leadership, but all they do is confront ----very little attempt at bipartisanship or consensus building !

[nathanziarek]

If you are not saying all public discourse should be shelved, what are you saying? Apparently only some discourse should be shelved. I asked who decides that. So who is it? Who decides which people are too honorable to be questioned in public and which aren't?

It makes no difference what I do. I haven't denounced it because I don't think it is despicable. It is largely fact-based (complete with sources) and extremely benign. I think this entire thing is a non-issue.

I don't know why you bring in Reid and Pelosi. Neither has any bearing on my contention that anti-war speech is patriotic -- more patriotic than following the company line.

So I ask again, who decides what can and cannot be said?

[Murffieus]

I'm sorry but, running a full page ad in the nation's most visible newspaper depicting our lead general as a traitor eventhough he was confirmed unanimously by the congress is not "public discourse".

Again there is a big difference on what legally CAN be said and what SHOULD be said-----anything that gives aid and comfort to the enemy which motivates them to carry on the fight to kill more Americans SHOULD NOT be said-----Reid and Pelosi are doing islamofacism's work for them----that is aiding and abbetting the enemy-----giving them encouragement (a fifth column?) that if they fight on the Americans will leave!

Common sense is the determinant!