EVERY Democrat Opposed Senate Resolution Honoring Military for Soleimani Strike

[Sam]

I should add that I'm not sure how many Republicans voted for the measure. 42 co-sponsored the bill but that doesn't mean that those who didn't also voted against it.

In any case, not one Democrat voted for it showing a unanimous willingness to snub our service men and women because of their hatred for Trump.

Popping in for a moment:

Given SecDef Esper's admission today that he did not see any intelligence detailing the imminent threat to embassies that Trump has claimed as the justification for Soleimani's assassination (SecDef gets the PDB so if he didn't see it, it ain't there), do you have any sense of ambivalence about this rah-rah attitude?

Were the Congress members who questioned the intelligence of an active WMD program in Iraq wrong to oppose what proved to be an immensely costly, ineffective, and destabilizing war? Were the people who tied an unwise military strategy to patriotism then right to do so?

Isn't hatred of Democrats clouding your vision and keeping you from treating the administration's action, which currently appears to have been retaliatory and not preemptive (and therefore likely illegal), as an act of war to be honestly and scrupulously questioned rather than blindly cheered?

--Sam

[rogue06]

Popping in for a moment:

Given SecDef Esper's admission today that he did not see any intelligence detailing the imminent threat to embassies that Trump has claimed as the justification for Soleimani's assassination (SecDef gets the PDB so if he didn't see it, it ain't there), do you have any sense of ambivalence about this rah-rah attitude?

Were the Congress members who questioned the intelligence of an active WMD program in Iraq wrong to oppose what proved to be an immensely costly, ineffective, and destabilizing war? Were the people who tied an unwise military strategy to patriotism then right to do so?

Isn't hatred of Democrats clouding your vision and keeping you from treating the administration's action, which currently appears to have been retaliatory and not preemptive (and therefore likely illegal), as an act of war to be honestly and scrupulously questioned rather than blindly cheered?

--Sam

So do you think that, if accurate, is reason to spurn our armed service people?

[Sam]

So do you think that, if accurate, is reason to spurn our armed service people?

I think using service members as a prop to deflect against skepticism and criticism is shameful and it seems to have been the motivation behind this resolution. If it is accurate that Trump ordered the strike without clear evidence of an imminent attack then the administration lied about its justification from the beginning and that's exactly what this resolution was meant to do. So an honest assessment of that question is needed.

Can't be jumping through these technical hoops just to respond tit-for-tat style, though, so I'd appreciate a full and considered response for the next time I'm able to chime in.

--Sam

[DivineOb]

So do you think that, if accurate, is reason to spurn our armed service people?

Our armed services volunteer to put themselves in harms way to protect the rest of us who choose not to go. All they ask in return is we only send them to the right place, at the right time, and for the right purpose. 50 parades and 2000 resolutions wouldn't make up for breaking that sacred trust.

[rogue06]

I think using service members as a prop to deflect against skepticism and criticism is shameful and it seems to have been the motivation behind this resolution. If it is accurate that Trump ordered the strike without clear evidence of an imminent attack then the administration lied about its justification from the beginning and that's exactly what this resolution was meant to do. So an honest assessment of that question is needed.

Can't be jumping through these technical hoops just to respond tit-for-tat style, though, so I'd appreciate a full and considered response for the next time I'm able to chime in.

--Sam

Sorry Sam but this is pretty typical after operations of this nature. We thank our servicemen and women for the work they did.

Given that simple fact the only ones using them as a prop are those who seek to exploit them as a way to feed their irrational hatred of Trump.

[Watermelon]

Sorry Sam but this is pretty typical after operations of this nature. We thank our servicemen and women for the work they did.

Given that simple fact the only ones using them as a prop are those who seek to exploit them as a way to feed their irrational hatred of Trump.

[Tassman]

How is it a fallacy? He never said they weren't real Republicans, and it's a fact that there are a number of Washington Republicans who openly oppose Trump. One of the curious phenomenons of the Trump presidency is that he's had to fight resistance in both parties.

Diddums. Trump's warmongering to divert attention away from his domestic problems and to excite his moronic support base is to be expected. It's what he does - distraction is at the core of Trump's foreign policy. But, as usual, he can't get his story straight.

[rogue06]

Diddums. Trump's warmongering to divert attention away from his domestic problems and to excite his moronic support base is to be expected. It's what he does - distraction is at the core of Trump's foreign policy. But, as usual, he can't get his story straight.

Would those domestic problems be the booming economy? Or are you still trying to pretend that Trump wants to distract attention away from the impeachment -- something that has only helped him the longer it goes on?

[Sparko]

Mad sympathy for your loss, pirate, and mad props for your priorities.

It's a mad world.

[rogue06]

Apparently we respect the hard work our men and women do in the military does more than you do down there.


Now, if we can only continue that kind of treatment after they leave the service

[Sam]

Sorry Sam but this is pretty typical after operations of this nature. We thank our servicemen and women for the work they did.

Given that simple fact the only ones using them as a prop are those who seek to exploit them as a way to feed their irrational hatred of Trump.

This is just repeating yourself without even trying to answer the question, I'm afraid.

There was no resolution in the Senate for the strike against al-Awlaki, for example, and I don't recall you cajoling for one at the time of his killing nor using the military as a shield against criticism of Obama's controversial decision to target a US citizen abroad, even though he was a known terrorist.

Not sure that such political gamemanship is as respectful to military service members as you're making it out to be.

--Sam

[rogue06]

This is just repeating yourself without even trying to answer the question, I'm afraid.

Likely because you didn't ask any.

I think using service members as a prop to deflect against skepticism and criticism is shameful and it seems to have been the motivation behind this resolution. If it is accurate that Trump ordered the strike without clear evidence of an imminent attack then the administration lied about its justification from the beginning and that's exactly what this resolution was meant to do. So an honest assessment of that question is needed.

Can't be jumping through these technical hoops just to respond tit-for-tat style, though, so I'd appreciate a full and considered response for the next time I'm able to chime in.

--Sam

[One Bad Pig]

Likely because you didn't ask any.

I believe he's referring to the questions he asked in his first post.

[DivineOb]

Trump says it doesn't matter if Soleimani posted an imminent threat.



Another *ahem* tower of lies continues to collapse.

[Sam]

Likely because you didn't ask any.

Yes, as OBP noted, I asked a few:

Popping in for a moment:

Given SecDef Esper's admission today that he did not see any intelligence detailing the imminent threat to embassies that Trump has claimed as the justification for Soleimani's assassination (SecDef gets the PDB so if he didn't see it, it ain't there), do you have any sense of ambivalence about this rah-rah attitude?

Were the Congress members who questioned the intelligence of an active WMD program in Iraq wrong to oppose what proved to be an immensely costly, ineffective, and destabilizing war? Were the people who tied an unwise military strategy to patriotism then right to do so?

Isn't hatred of Democrats clouding your vision and keeping you from treating the administration's action, which currently appears to have been retaliatory and not preemptive (and therefore likely illegal), as an act of war to be honestly and scrupulously questioned rather than blindly cheered?

--Sam

That post and those questions led to something of a tangent but you did not address the questions, presented in the context of your claim that Democrat's "hatred for Trump" was leading them to "snub our service men and women".

Understanding that, along with the additional information that Republicans (many here!) were critical of Obama's decision to kill al-Awlaki and there was no call for a resolution to "honor the troops", are there answers? If the administration is, in fact, lying about its justification for ordering the assassination of Soleimani, isn't it plausible that this resolution -- crafted as a counter-measure to the resolution seeking to limit Trump's war-making ability RE: Iran -- is serving the ulterior motive of stigmatizing criticism?

And isn't that exactly how you're playing it out in this thread?

--Sam