Today I read an article
about veteran’s and military members shifting strongly toward President Obama.
The writer asserts that “Disaffection with the politics of shock and awe runs
deep among men and women who have served in the military during the past decade
of conflict.” Apparently Margot Roosevelt has no idea what Shock and Awe is or
she would know that it has nothing to do with the way we have waged war in
Iraq, Afghanistan and other places for the past four years.
Or military has been mired in a limited war or “Operations
Other Than War (OOTW)” during that time. They have been hampered by ROE (Rules
of Engagement) the likes of which two generations of military leaders have been
trying to avoid since the Vietnam Conflict ended 40 years ago—yet another
promise not kept to the Vietnam vets.
This article is an obvious attempt to make Obama seem more
attractive to the military community and from the comment section it seems to
be effective to some degree. I like to think military people who have been out
at the pointy end of the pen writing history would be smart enough to know who
has been driving that pen for the past four years. Ms. Roosevelt goes on to
state “factually” that “If the election were held today, Obama would win the
veteran vote by as much as seven points over Romney, higher than his margin in
the general population.” Of course, there is no poll cited for her statement
because she made it up.
From 2001 until 2008 the media made a point of broadcasting
the numbers of KIA weekly and the running totals reported every night. We heard
"This has been the deadliest week for US forces since (whenever)" on
a regular basis. Each Sunday’s PARADE section of the paper had the full color
pictures of those killed in the past week.
The media did not do that because they suddenly cared for
the military (they haven't since WWII). They did it to erode faith in the GOP
and President Bush. Democratic candidates ran on promises to end the bloodshed.
Obama rose to the top of the heap by being the biggest anti-war dove in the
pack. He attacked Bush on all facets of conducting the War on Terror and swore
to end the violence and bring the troops home in a year. How's that working out
for you?
Was it Mitt Romney or BH Obama running around the end zone
spiking Bin Laden's head for the 253rd time? Wasn't it Obama saying "Mitt
Romney wouldn't have the courage to pull the trigger" on bin Laden? In
light of his actions, posturing and words, which candidate seems less likely to
send troops to war? Obama is clearly trying to seem like a military war hero
and he is willing to send troops anywhere for any reason to prove it.
Obama did not keep one of his promises on the war. He did
not reverse any of Bush's policies in fighting it; he even claimed credit for
every success those policies generated. The fact is, he could not care less for
the men and women in uniform. He is still reluctant to return a salute. The
troops have spent more time at war, not less. And despite media collusion,
soldiers have NOT stopped dying under his watch. They still return in flag-draped
coffins; the media has found it prudent for their man in office if they
don't publish pictures of them.
And that is the worst of it. Living or dead, the democrats
see military people as tools for their own political ends and not the brave
protectors of Liberty that most Americans know them to be. They are . . . WE are . . . your sons, husbands and
fathers; wives, mothers and daughters. We deserve a man in office who will care
more for the lives he sends to war than the tiny ticks in poll numbers as he
goes off to another round of golf.
No comments:
Post a Comment