The left supports our troops.
Posted by: Tom Shipley at October 10, 2006 09:45 AM
Yeah Tom...
Equating US troops as gang members and homicidal maniacs is definitely support.
Hell, the poster boy of "Dems are strong on Defense" Representative Murtha called them murderers before any facts were actually known.
If that's support for the troops, maybe you Libs love George Bush more than ANYONE else. Ever.
Posted by: wawilliyo at October 10, 2006 10:54 AM
"The left doesn't support the troops" is a generalization of the worst kind. We just have a different idea of what it means to support the troops than you do. Our idea of supporting the troops is to keep them our of harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. These "troops" are human beings. Not toy soldiers.
Your idea of "supporting the troops" is to support the Iraq War. Quite frankly, what with the disaster it has become, I could not possibly support our troops and simultaneously support this war. Our soldiers are dying, man. So are innocent Iraqi civilians. So please, don't accuse me of not supporting the troops when the politicians you support are the ones who sent them into this hellhole in the first place.
Posted by:
Prog at October 10, 2006 11:03 AM
Tom explain how the left supports the troops. Please don't give me this garbage about bringing them home is supporting them.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
--John Stewart Mill--
Posted by: GO WEST at October 10, 2006 11:07 AM
Prog,
Supporting the troops means supporting the war, period.
It also means not comparing them to gang members...
Posted by: Mark Noonan at October 10, 2006 11:29 AM
speaking as a vet of Gulf 1, I prefer the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force, internationalize the occupation & reconstruction, exit strategy.
supporting the troops in this way deters our enemies from aggression.
sun tsu's ultimate victory is winning the war one never has to fight thru deterrence.
support the troops.
Posted by: OhioOrrin at October 10, 2006 11:48 AM
Mark,
Supporting the troops means supporting the war, period.
This is probably an indication of why you still support Bush. You simply can't imagine any other option, including the idea that the Iraq war is not beneficial to the United States. Leaving them to their civil war actually helps us, as they will kill each other with far greater efficiency without us being there.
Soon the Republicans will wake up and realize this, and start advocating a "timetable" for withdrawal (many have already.) Then you will undoubtedly say something to the effect of "Mission Accomplished" and flip-flop on this issue. On that date supporting the withdrawal will magically be equated with supporting the troops. Nothing will have changed; only the political winds will shift, and you with it.
On that day, we can officially dub you "John Kerry Junior." Until then, the stay-the-course machine will be stuck in high gear, and the rest of us can only marvel at your single-minded devotion.
Posted by: Jim Oliver at October 10, 2006 12:11 PM
Though I have usually crapped on the Bush Republicans before, I agree with their outrage over those letters to the editor. I read that article on Adlesperger and I am certainly repulsed by the comparison of his brave kind to murderous street thugs.
Posted by: Canuckguy at October 10, 2006 12:19 PM
Prog said: "We just have a different idea of what it means to support the troops than you do."
Ya... by calling them murderers and traitors.
Prog also said: "Our idea of supporting the troops is to keep them our of harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary."
Just like Somalia and Kosovo were absolutely necessary...
The Left's rhetoric doesn't even hold water on what they see as a reason to use force... I guess only when they need to prop up their president's poll numbers is the reason to go to war.
Posted by: wawilliyo at October 10, 2006 12:23 PM
Canuckguy:
I am in 100% agreement with what you said. You do bag on Bush, but at least where it truly counts, defending troops who are doing a good job under hard circumstances.
By seeing a difference between the troops doing their job and those who decide what that job will be, you recognize that the ones who are faultless are the troops (in general, I know there are bad seeds everywhere).
Hate the mission creator, but don't hate the person carrying out their orders.
Posted by: wawilliyo at October 10, 2006 12:29 PM
The first thing the left doesn't agree with is that we were attacked, and didn't ask for this war. Second, the war in Iraq is due to the fact that Saddam disregarded the UN resolutions, time after time. Third, After 9-11 we have a much narrower magin for error. As I have written here before, imagine the outrage, had the CIA, NSA, British, French, German, and Russian Intellegence agencys, and Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and countless other Democrat leaders, had been right, and Saddam had WMD and had used them on US Soil? This was neither an illegal or unjustified war and is one we can ill afford to lose.
Posted by: arcman at October 10, 2006 01:19 PM
Supporting the troops means supporting the war, period.
How utterly wrong-headed.
Whoever said you see "the troops" as mere toy soldiers was dead-on.
Posted by: Norah at October 10, 2006 01:31 PM
At what point does keeping the troops alive mean people hate them? Did we throw lives away needlessly at Iwo Jima? At Anzio? We had a purpose and a mission. It would seem leaders these days have forgotten that. Policing a war zone, waiting to trip over a bomb isn't a direction. Losing $9billion of reconstruction isn't a direction... it's incompetence.
Posted by: Fury at October 10, 2006 02:06 PM
This is the worst I ever heard. I now know why my parents sat in stunned silence when my brother was drafted for vietnam.I now have a son and never will I let him fight for the disgracful left who would compare him to a street thug. Yet he would be providing their ability to say such disgracful things.The street thugs are the insurgents who blow up countless innocents everyday for a difference in religion or tribal affiliation.
If you love tyrants and dictators then go live in a country and try to express your views. Go to North Korea and say something about their government.
I believe we should end Iraq with overwhelming force and get out. Who would police this world if not the US the UN with their spineless resolutions?
Wake up we are not perfect but I believe in my country.
Posted by: j ryder at October 10, 2006 02:14 PM
Norah - cool. How many CARE packages have you sent troops overseas?
Posted by: Kahn at October 10, 2006 02:25 PM
Mark, how in the Sam Hill can you possibly say that "supporting the troops means supporting the war, period" If George Bush ordered our troops to jump into meat-grinder, would support for that order be "supporting the troops"?
And since when do some random letters into the L.A. Times represent the entireity of everyone to the left of Joe Lieberman?
Posted by:
Bobster at October 10, 2006 02:28 PM
"Supporting the troops means supporting the war, period."
You are so wrong. I wish your brain could handle incoming information.
"Tom explain how the left supports the troops. Please don't give me this garbage about bringing them home is supporting them."
Well I guess it will be a one-sided arguement then, since it's your way or shut up. I wish there was a word to describe this kind of behavoir, oh wait there is, antisocial personality disorder. A condition characterised by lack of empathy or conscience, and manipulative behaviors.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."
No, war IS the ugliest thing. And before that comes the bigotry where people make false claims against a group.
What I think Mark really wants to see is more death, because that's the only outcome to his position. If you so afraid of failing in Iraq, maybe you should realise that the people like you failed the moment you decided to invade Iraq. Staying the course, and the idea that victory is the only solution is only delaying certain people's public failure at the cost of human suffering and death...Beyond childish these acts become criminal and criminally insane.
Posted by: USA at October 10, 2006 03:52 PM
Defeat the left at the ballot box. America's future depends on it.
Posted by: Freedom1 at October 10, 2006 03:57 PM
"Unfortunately, this is all too common on the left these days - a hatred of the United States, a contempt for the United States military, and an admiration for the terrorists we fight. There is nothing to be done about it - people have a right to be monumentally stupid"
Good thing these people don't even exist! It's just bigoted nonsense. Either this whole website is some kind of joke lead by Mark, in which case is pretty sick and you should get a life. Or Mark and Republicans actually think like this and need some help from the left to correct their ignorant butts. Unfortunately, if the Right is this extreme then they need to be identified as the mentally ill, incabable of reasoning with and speaking to.
I'd hate to waste my time talking to someone who is just making some sick joke my pretending to be a radical republican!
Posted by: USA at October 10, 2006 04:03 PM
HONOR KILLING IN AUSTRALIA
LGF, "A teenage girl in Australia made the mistake of telling her parents she didn’t want to be a Muslim:" 'Religion blamed for stabbing'
The Courier-Mail: A RELIGIOUS feud between a Muslim father and his teenage daughter may have sparked a bloody domestic dispute on the Gold Coast which left the man’s wife dead and him fighting for life in hospital. Police are investigating suggestions the violence erupted after the 17-year-old girl told her father she wanted to opt out of the Islamic faith and convert to Christianity. The girl’s mother is believed to have stepped in to protect her daughter, only to be fatally stabbed with a kitchen knife.
Neighbours reported hearing “blood-curdling” screams before the hysterical girl ran half-naked from their Southport home unit covered in scratches. Police later found the body of the girl’s mother, 41, inside the blood-smeared unit. Her husband was taken to the Gold Coast Hospital with a stab wound to the chest. He was last night in a critical condition under police guard.
Neighbour Caitlin Dalton was taking out the rubbish about 7pm on Monday when she heard “loud, huge, terrifying screams” coming from the unit complex.
“She (the teenager) was yelling, ‘Help me, help me, they’re trying to kill me’,” Ms Dalton said. “Everybody heard the screams but we couldn’t work out which unit they were coming from. Then this girl emerged in the stairwell hysterical and crying.
”Her clothes had been ripped off, she was just in her underwear and she had quite severe scratches down her arm and across her back."
*****
Sahih Bukhari 4.260:
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people [hypocrites] and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'"
Posted by: Freedom1 at October 10, 2006 04:33 PM
Posted by: Freedom1 at October 10, 2006 05:05 PM
Norah,
No, I see them as my brothers and sisters, because I was one of them, once upon a time... as was my father, and grandfather before me. I know from personal experience how these magnificent young men and women think and what they desire...and when the guns go off, what they want is victory at all costs.
If you want to support the troops, the only means you have is to support them total victory. If you think that supporting them means engineering their political defeat via premature withdrawal, then you're thinking is entirely wrong...it is you who would treat them as toy soldiers, as mere automatons who can be sent in to battle and then withdrawn when YOU get tired of the fight and want to go play some other game.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at October 10, 2006 05:05 PM
why does do "conservatives" or "the right" continue this awful word equation:
Not supporting the Bush administration = Hating America?
Did those who hated (yes hated) Mr. Clinton and did not support his administration = Hating America?
I think the answer is a negative on both accounts. However, if those who continue to believe that opposing bush is not being patriotic, then those who opposed Clinton where not patriotic. Of course this is absurd.
Our country was built on dissent. Thomas Jefferson no less opposed much of the Founding father's Ideas. Teddy Roosevelt was so disgusted with his own party, who was power at the time, that he split from it and created his own party. Newt Gingrich was the leading voice of dissent in the early years of the Clinton Administration.
Opposing the party in power is not Hating America. The party in power is not the United States of America, it institutions, the presidency, congress, the supreme court and most of all the Constitution are what America is.
Does the blogger mean to say the those who opposing the Bush administration hate those same institutions?
Or is the real story, that the blogger feel that opposing the Bush adminstration = Hating America? that those who do the share his view = Hating America? does the blogger feel that not supporting "conservative values" = Hating America?
if so, the list of the following countries would be to his/her liking: Chile (1973-1989); El Salvador (until 1992); Nicaragua (until 1989); South Africa (until 1992); USSR (until 1991ish); North Korea (now); Iran (now) etc...I can go on but won't.
In a democracy, just because you oppose the government in power, does not mean you can not dissent, if then all the sacrafices that so many brave men, women and children have faught for would mean nothing. (children faught in the civil war, just in case you where wondering)
Posted by:
timatotoro at October 10, 2006 06:56 PM
The "my way or the highway" attitude is a clear warning sign. And a clear sign of a irrational person.
Posted by: USA at October 10, 2006 07:50 PM
"Defeat the left at the ballot box. America's future depends on it."
Will you explain why OUR future depends on it! Cause I'll shut you down in a hurry!
Posted by: USA at October 10, 2006 07:52 PM
"Prog said: "We just have a different idea of what it means to support the troops than you do."
"Ya... by calling them murderers and traitors."
Never happened.
"The Left's rhetoric doesn't even hold water on what they see as a reason to use force."
Acting like a rational human being is a good. You don't realise the Left sees way more than you do!...We are trying to educate you!
Posted by: USA at October 10, 2006 08:00 PM
"Will you explain why OUR future depends on it!" Posted by: USA
I'll let Mark Steyn explain it to you.
"...Ed Driscoll interviews Mark Steyn, author of America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It. In his book, Steyn argues that the world will be divided between America and the rest; and for our sake America had better win."
Hit "Play"
Posted by: Freedom1 at October 11, 2006 05:47 AM
timatoro,
The problem is that the Democrats' criticism long ago slipped over the line in to Copperheadism...there are ways and means to be a fierce critic and a patriot...but the likes of Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Moore, et al prefer to give aid and comfort to the enemy, as long as they think they can win an election by so doing.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at October 12, 2006 02:08 AM
The left supports our troops.
Yeah Tom...
Equating US troops as gang members and homicidal maniacs is definitely support.
Hell, the poster boy of "Dems are strong on Defense" Representative Murtha called them murderers before any facts were actually known.
If that's support for the troops, maybe you Libs love George Bush more than ANYONE else. Ever.
"The left doesn't support the troops" is a generalization of the worst kind. We just have a different idea of what it means to support the troops than you do. Our idea of supporting the troops is to keep them our of harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. These "troops" are human beings. Not toy soldiers.
Your idea of "supporting the troops" is to support the Iraq War. Quite frankly, what with the disaster it has become, I could not possibly support our troops and simultaneously support this war. Our soldiers are dying, man. So are innocent Iraqi civilians. So please, don't accuse me of not supporting the troops when the politicians you support are the ones who sent them into this hellhole in the first place.
Tom explain how the left supports the troops. Please don't give me this garbage about bringing them home is supporting them.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
--John Stewart Mill--
Prog,
Supporting the troops means supporting the war, period.
It also means not comparing them to gang members...
speaking as a vet of Gulf 1, I prefer the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force, internationalize the occupation & reconstruction, exit strategy.
supporting the troops in this way deters our enemies from aggression.
sun tsu's ultimate victory is winning the war one never has to fight thru deterrence.
support the troops.
Mark,
This is probably an indication of why you still support Bush. You simply can't imagine any other option, including the idea that the Iraq war is not beneficial to the United States. Leaving them to their civil war actually helps us, as they will kill each other with far greater efficiency without us being there.
Soon the Republicans will wake up and realize this, and start advocating a "timetable" for withdrawal (many have already.) Then you will undoubtedly say something to the effect of "Mission Accomplished" and flip-flop on this issue. On that date supporting the withdrawal will magically be equated with supporting the troops. Nothing will have changed; only the political winds will shift, and you with it.
On that day, we can officially dub you "John Kerry Junior." Until then, the stay-the-course machine will be stuck in high gear, and the rest of us can only marvel at your single-minded devotion.
Though I have usually crapped on the Bush Republicans before, I agree with their outrage over those letters to the editor. I read that article on Adlesperger and I am certainly repulsed by the comparison of his brave kind to murderous street thugs.
Prog said: "We just have a different idea of what it means to support the troops than you do."
Ya... by calling them murderers and traitors.
Prog also said: "Our idea of supporting the troops is to keep them our of harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary."
Just like Somalia and Kosovo were absolutely necessary...
The Left's rhetoric doesn't even hold water on what they see as a reason to use force... I guess only when they need to prop up their president's poll numbers is the reason to go to war.
Canuckguy:
I am in 100% agreement with what you said. You do bag on Bush, but at least where it truly counts, defending troops who are doing a good job under hard circumstances.
By seeing a difference between the troops doing their job and those who decide what that job will be, you recognize that the ones who are faultless are the troops (in general, I know there are bad seeds everywhere).
Hate the mission creator, but don't hate the person carrying out their orders.
The first thing the left doesn't agree with is that we were attacked, and didn't ask for this war. Second, the war in Iraq is due to the fact that Saddam disregarded the UN resolutions, time after time. Third, After 9-11 we have a much narrower magin for error. As I have written here before, imagine the outrage, had the CIA, NSA, British, French, German, and Russian Intellegence agencys, and Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and countless other Democrat leaders, had been right, and Saddam had WMD and had used them on US Soil? This was neither an illegal or unjustified war and is one we can ill afford to lose.
Supporting the troops means supporting the war, period.
How utterly wrong-headed.
Whoever said you see "the troops" as mere toy soldiers was dead-on.
At what point does keeping the troops alive mean people hate them? Did we throw lives away needlessly at Iwo Jima? At Anzio? We had a purpose and a mission. It would seem leaders these days have forgotten that. Policing a war zone, waiting to trip over a bomb isn't a direction. Losing $9billion of reconstruction isn't a direction... it's incompetence.
This is the worst I ever heard. I now know why my parents sat in stunned silence when my brother was drafted for vietnam.I now have a son and never will I let him fight for the disgracful left who would compare him to a street thug. Yet he would be providing their ability to say such disgracful things.The street thugs are the insurgents who blow up countless innocents everyday for a difference in religion or tribal affiliation.
If you love tyrants and dictators then go live in a country and try to express your views. Go to North Korea and say something about their government.
I believe we should end Iraq with overwhelming force and get out. Who would police this world if not the US the UN with their spineless resolutions?
Wake up we are not perfect but I believe in my country.
Norah - cool. How many CARE packages have you sent troops overseas?
Mark, how in the Sam Hill can you possibly say that "supporting the troops means supporting the war, period" If George Bush ordered our troops to jump into meat-grinder, would support for that order be "supporting the troops"?
And since when do some random letters into the L.A. Times represent the entireity of everyone to the left of Joe Lieberman?
"Supporting the troops means supporting the war, period."
You are so wrong. I wish your brain could handle incoming information.
"Tom explain how the left supports the troops. Please don't give me this garbage about bringing them home is supporting them."
Well I guess it will be a one-sided arguement then, since it's your way or shut up. I wish there was a word to describe this kind of behavoir, oh wait there is, antisocial personality disorder. A condition characterised by lack of empathy or conscience, and manipulative behaviors.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."
No, war IS the ugliest thing. And before that comes the bigotry where people make false claims against a group.
What I think Mark really wants to see is more death, because that's the only outcome to his position. If you so afraid of failing in Iraq, maybe you should realise that the people like you failed the moment you decided to invade Iraq. Staying the course, and the idea that victory is the only solution is only delaying certain people's public failure at the cost of human suffering and death...Beyond childish these acts become criminal and criminally insane.
Defeat the left at the ballot box. America's future depends on it.
"Unfortunately, this is all too common on the left these days - a hatred of the United States, a contempt for the United States military, and an admiration for the terrorists we fight. There is nothing to be done about it - people have a right to be monumentally stupid"
Good thing these people don't even exist! It's just bigoted nonsense. Either this whole website is some kind of joke lead by Mark, in which case is pretty sick and you should get a life. Or Mark and Republicans actually think like this and need some help from the left to correct their ignorant butts. Unfortunately, if the Right is this extreme then they need to be identified as the mentally ill, incabable of reasoning with and speaking to.
I'd hate to waste my time talking to someone who is just making some sick joke my pretending to be a radical republican!
HONOR KILLING IN AUSTRALIA
LGF, "A teenage girl in Australia made the mistake of telling her parents she didn’t want to be a Muslim:" 'Religion blamed for stabbing'
The Courier-Mail: A RELIGIOUS feud between a Muslim father and his teenage daughter may have sparked a bloody domestic dispute on the Gold Coast which left the man’s wife dead and him fighting for life in hospital. Police are investigating suggestions the violence erupted after the 17-year-old girl told her father she wanted to opt out of the Islamic faith and convert to Christianity. The girl’s mother is believed to have stepped in to protect her daughter, only to be fatally stabbed with a kitchen knife.
Neighbours reported hearing “blood-curdling” screams before the hysterical girl ran half-naked from their Southport home unit covered in scratches. Police later found the body of the girl’s mother, 41, inside the blood-smeared unit. Her husband was taken to the Gold Coast Hospital with a stab wound to the chest. He was last night in a critical condition under police guard.
Neighbour Caitlin Dalton was taking out the rubbish about 7pm on Monday when she heard “loud, huge, terrifying screams” coming from the unit complex.
“She (the teenager) was yelling, ‘Help me, help me, they’re trying to kill me’,” Ms Dalton said. “Everybody heard the screams but we couldn’t work out which unit they were coming from. Then this girl emerged in the stairwell hysterical and crying.
”Her clothes had been ripped off, she was just in her underwear and she had quite severe scratches down her arm and across her back."
*****
Sahih Bukhari 4.260:
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people [hypocrites] and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'"
Watch David Zucker's New GOP Ad!
Norah,
No, I see them as my brothers and sisters, because I was one of them, once upon a time... as was my father, and grandfather before me. I know from personal experience how these magnificent young men and women think and what they desire...and when the guns go off, what they want is victory at all costs.
If you want to support the troops, the only means you have is to support them total victory. If you think that supporting them means engineering their political defeat via premature withdrawal, then you're thinking is entirely wrong...it is you who would treat them as toy soldiers, as mere automatons who can be sent in to battle and then withdrawn when YOU get tired of the fight and want to go play some other game.
why does do "conservatives" or "the right" continue this awful word equation:
Not supporting the Bush administration = Hating America?
Did those who hated (yes hated) Mr. Clinton and did not support his administration = Hating America?
I think the answer is a negative on both accounts. However, if those who continue to believe that opposing bush is not being patriotic, then those who opposed Clinton where not patriotic. Of course this is absurd.
Our country was built on dissent. Thomas Jefferson no less opposed much of the Founding father's Ideas. Teddy Roosevelt was so disgusted with his own party, who was power at the time, that he split from it and created his own party. Newt Gingrich was the leading voice of dissent in the early years of the Clinton Administration.
Opposing the party in power is not Hating America. The party in power is not the United States of America, it institutions, the presidency, congress, the supreme court and most of all the Constitution are what America is.
Does the blogger mean to say the those who opposing the Bush administration hate those same institutions?
Or is the real story, that the blogger feel that opposing the Bush adminstration = Hating America? that those who do the share his view = Hating America? does the blogger feel that not supporting "conservative values" = Hating America?
if so, the list of the following countries would be to his/her liking: Chile (1973-1989); El Salvador (until 1992); Nicaragua (until 1989); South Africa (until 1992); USSR (until 1991ish); North Korea (now); Iran (now) etc...I can go on but won't.
In a democracy, just because you oppose the government in power, does not mean you can not dissent, if then all the sacrafices that so many brave men, women and children have faught for would mean nothing. (children faught in the civil war, just in case you where wondering)
The "my way or the highway" attitude is a clear warning sign. And a clear sign of a irrational person.
"Defeat the left at the ballot box. America's future depends on it."
Will you explain why OUR future depends on it! Cause I'll shut you down in a hurry!
"Prog said: "We just have a different idea of what it means to support the troops than you do."
"Ya... by calling them murderers and traitors."
Never happened.
"The Left's rhetoric doesn't even hold water on what they see as a reason to use force."
Acting like a rational human being is a good. You don't realise the Left sees way more than you do!...We are trying to educate you!
"Will you explain why OUR future depends on it!" Posted by: USA
I'll let Mark Steyn explain it to you.
"...Ed Driscoll interviews Mark Steyn, author of America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It. In his book, Steyn argues that the world will be divided between America and the rest; and for our sake America had better win."
Hit "Play"
timatoro,
The problem is that the Democrats' criticism long ago slipped over the line in to Copperheadism...there are ways and means to be a fierce critic and a patriot...but the likes of Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Moore, et al prefer to give aid and comfort to the enemy, as long as they think they can win an election by so doing.