VoteVets still pushes the Murtha cut and run policy
I’m not really surprised that VoteVets sans Jon Soltz continues to press for a cut and run from Iraq agenda. What does surprise me is their reasoning. Emphasis is mine;
“The attacks this morning in Iraq, which tragically killed five US Service Members, are a stark reminder that no matter what, combat in Iraq is not at an end. The rise in violence comes as remaining insurgents try to dissuade Iraq’s government from requesting that US Forces stay past the year-end Status of Forces Agreement deadline. The attacks emphasize what VoteVets has been saying for some time – as long as US Forces remain in Iraq, there will be no end to violent attacks against them. President Obama should honor the Status of Forces Agreement, and affirm to Prime Minister Maliki that all US troops will be returning home, as planned.”
First of all, I’m pretty sure that the families of those five casualties don’t appreciate “the largest progressive group of veterans in America” standing on their sons’, husbands’ and fathers’ corpses to promote their MoveOn agenda. Secondly, cutting and running from Iraq will make their sacrifice null and void.
The attacks on US troops are miniscule compared to the attacks on Iraqi citizens and the attacks are meant to scare Iraqis and Americans into doing what the terrorists want. So is VoteVets saying that they want to concede to the terrorists’ demands?
Category: Antiwar crowd
To answer your final question… Sure the HELL sounds like it.
well, yes, if you’re in a combat zone you MAY actually get shot at. But we are strictly advisory and Civil Affairs. SF may still do their secret squirrel stuff, but they’re not “there”.
What exactly do they propose? Throw our allies under the bus? Our “Word” is already hard to trust because every time it comes down to action a bunch of “progressive” folks raise holy hell and political leaders puss out. Does Honor matter? Or Loyalty? Guess not.