People such as General Pelosi, Cindy Sheehan and Jane Fonda....
Sources:
Cnn News on Gitmo and Broken Borders
numersusa.com
alipac.com
American Legion
2007-03-23 11:04:48 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because of their unending hatred of President Bush forces them to take the opposite side as him, no matter how it effects the country. Therefore for them to succeed his policies must fail. If the War on Terror succeeds he succeeds and they fail.
2007-03-23 11:09:58 · answer #1 · answered by meathookcook 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
The three you cite aren't all the same in either methodology or motivation.
I think Nancy Pelosi is driven far more by her agenda as a Democrat than by any feelings for or against Americans. If you asked her she might say she is for the troops, but I suspect she has no idea what that really means, and she is an agenda-driven leftist.
Cindy Sheehan is the mother of a young man who died in combat in Iraq. I have to sympathize with her loss--I have no idea how I would react if I'd lost one of my own in similar circumstances. I think her cause has been hijacked by the left, however, and the woman is basically clueless about the enemy or our own forces.
Jane Fonda is driven by a desire for attention. When she was married to Roger Vadim she was performing semi-naked. When she was married to Tom Hayden she was marching against the war. When she was married to Ted Turner she was doing the Tomohawk chop for the Atlanta Braves. If she married Bugs Bunny she'd be eating carrots and saying "What's up, doc?"
Sadly, none of this helps the troops any at all. They need our support.
2007-03-23 12:17:33 · answer #2 · answered by Warren D 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The last I heard, Nancy Pelosi was leading the charge to end the war in Iraq.
Cindy Sheehan has dedicated her life to pointing out the hypocrisy in the current administration.
Jane Fonda is a private citizen who is neither a politician or relevant in any way.
How does either of these persons, all women by the way, have anything to do with favoring enemy combatants over American citizens?
2007-03-23 11:10:49 · answer #3 · answered by ken erestu 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Okay, let's explain this one more time for you charmingly slow right wingers:
1) The left doesn't support enemy combatants. Period.
2) We do support Habeus Corpus because innocent people have been and are being detained, and there has to be a mechanism to force a judge to reconcile evidence of a crime or compelling evidence of planning a major crime with an arrest. In other words, the goverment has an obligation to show an impartial judge that there is evidence of a crime, not "we think he's involved because we're never wrong about such things even when we make mistakes".
3) We do support giving everyone access to an attorney so that the government can't pick and chose who qualifies for Constitutionally driven legal proceedings and who doesn't.
It's really simple, nobody wants to risk having people detianed who are not guilty of a crime (terrorism is a crime). If they aren't criminals, then they are POWs. Either way, there are legal procedures that have been used for decades or even centuries that dictate how you handle such things if you claim that you have a civilized society.
No one wants terrorists running loose, we just want to make sure everyone, even those people you dont like, at least have some chance at proving themselves innocent if they are in fact innocent.
Is that so hard to understand?
2007-03-23 11:14:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
You have to understand the effect that GITMO has had on the world. Along with the pictures from Abu Gharib, Gitmo has caused the world to, rightly or wrongly, view the US as a country that supports the use of torture. The US spent a lot of blood and treasure to develop a reputation as a country that supported basic human rights and the dignity of mankind.
People are rightly unhappy now that our reputation has been soiled.
2007-03-23 11:11:59 · answer #5 · answered by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Let me tell you a bit of a history lesson !
When German and French soldiers understood during WW1 they would both be sacrificed and the only winner would be some canon foundry, they ended in the trenches rebelling and playing cards together realizing they were part of a terrible senseless massive devastation their governement has been preparing for years by overheating their nationalist ego.
And for one time socialist had it right:
- the poor give the cannon fooder
- the middle class has to bend over
- the rich become wealthier
2007-03-23 11:24:01 · answer #6 · answered by NLBNLB 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because they are suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. People in that state will cave to the biggest bully.
2007-03-23 11:08:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I'm sorry, but have you lost a child in Iraq? Have you ever lost someone you loved? Even better, have you signed up to go to Iraq yourself??? I thought not.
ACTION speaks louder than your trivial words.
2007-03-23 11:19:16 · answer #8 · answered by Not so looney afterall 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your "sources" don't seem to work (the URLs don't load) or are prohibitively vague (how about a link to a specific news story?).
So, I'll just have to answer with: they don't.
2007-03-23 11:13:47 · answer #9 · answered by Babu Chicorico 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Or like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, & Fox News? Is that what you meant?
Tell me why do you sympathize with right-wing bigots?
2007-03-23 11:09:37 · answer #10 · answered by Active Denial System™ 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋