Overly Sensitive?
My good friend Vidiot got all bent out of shape over Peter Roskam saying Tammy Duckworth wanted to cut and run from Iraq, the implication being that since she served in Iraq and lost her legs there, both the accusation that she wanted to retreat from Iraq was uncalled for and the choice of words was outwardly offensive. From the MSNBC article:
During an election debate at the weekend in the outskirts of Chicago, Peter Roskam, the Republican candidate for Illinois’s sixth district, trotted out the familiar line that his Democratic opponent wanted America to “cut and run” from Iraq.
His opponent, Tammy Duckworth, a former National Guard pilot who lost both her legs in Iraq last year when her helicopter was shot down by a rocket-propelled grenade, was visibly angry at the exchange. “I just could not believe he would say that to me,” said Ms Duckworth, who now walks on artificial legs with the help of a cane. “I have risked my life to serve my country and you cannot question my patriotism.”
This is the problem with Democrats. No one questioned her patriotism in that statement. He questioned her wanting to leave Iraq. If he did it in ads, no one here has seen the ads to tell otherwise.
Secondly, there’s this quote:
“I am sick and tired of the Republicans saying ‘Either you agree with us on national security or you are not patriotic’,” says Ms Duckworth, whose campaign has ignited the highest level of volunteer door-to-door support the Democrats can remember in this district. “It is total baloney – in fact I have a better army word, but I can’t use it. We must never forget that it is patriotic and it is American to question people in power.”
The typical Democrat talking point that everyone is allowed to question those in power, but no one is allowed to question the questioners. Ever. Period.
Cindy Sheehan cannot ever be questioned on anything because Casey died in Iraq.
Kristen Breitweiser (and her gaggle of 9/11 widows) cannot be questioned on her position on 9/11 because her husband was killed.
Max Cleland’s judgement on defense matters cannot be questioned because he lost his limbs in Vietnam.
John Kerry’s courage because he got some purple hearts that he still won’t release the records that explain the wounds that explain them.
And now, Tammy Duckworth cannot be questioned on her plan to leave Iraq and “cut and run” as her opponent calls it because she served there. Apparently, serving in Iraq makes you an expert on it who cannot be questioned for any reason whatsoever. Unless of course you’re pro-war, in which case serving in Iraq means only that you’re a puppet of the Bush administration.
Why this gets any more attention than any other political pissing contest is beyond me, except that Democrats have once again set themselves up as unquestionable on an issue. For all the talk about how people inside the Bush Administration will immediately call you unpatriotic, isn’t a war veteran holding up her war service as a shield against all criticisms of her war beliefs the same exact thing?
Of course it is. Anyone not looking at it through partisan glasses can see it.
Which basically means nobody.
Technorati Tags: tammy duckworth, peter roskam
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:37 am
Are you honestly missing the noxiousness of this?
What made this talking point so appalling is the cruelty of it. Duckworth had her legs amputated and will never run again. Couldn’t Roskam have come up with some less callous way to phrase it than “cut and run”?
It also, of course, highlights the fact that she honorably served while he stayed at home and watched the war on Fox. This does give her some moral authority, in my mind. Conservatives used to respect military service but something happened with that along the way.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:04 am
Thanks for proving my point. Since she served, she is incapable of of being criticized about her views on Iraq, the war, or her strategy for fighting it because if you do question her, you’re unpatriotic.
I guess the Dems don’t have a monopoly on that “don’t criticize us” argument.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Oh, and just for the record:
1. No one is talking about her military service, only her Iraq plan.
2. Yes she’ll never run again. Does that mean she can’t run for office, run to the store, run a campaign, or have the runs?
Stop it. Your overly sensitive platitudes crack me up. It amazes me how much you guys need a bogeyman.
If she has a good record, she’ll run on it and win. If people have a good idea of what she stands for, they’ll vote for her.
Frankly, this whole “cut and run” issue is stupid and anyone pushing it is just plain looking for something to be offended over.
October 3rd, 2006 at 2:15 am
Calling a veteran who’s had both legs amputated in service to her country a “cut an runner” in the very war she served in, is just being a callous jerk.
One need not be over-sensitive to see that. I dYou’d have to be highly INSENSITIVE to not see it.
By the way:
How is this is a typical Democrat talking point?
>>The typical Democrat talking point that everyone is allowed to question those in power, but no one is allowed to question the questioners. Ever. Period.
You’re just making that up about us.
Do you have any quotes or links where Democrats have said that? If it is one of our talking points, you surely must have dozens of links.
You’ve based the whole premise of your post on something very few liberals believe.
Here’s what most of we liberals really believe: active service in the military or in a war gives extra credibility to what that veteran says about war.
For example, John McCain who HAS been tortured as a POW has more credibility than Rumsfeld who sat the war out. Does that mean I don’t question McCain? Of course not! I doubt I’d vote for him but I will always repect him when he speaks about torture, war, veterans issues, etc.
No only CAN veterans be questioned or challenged… they SHOULD be. But respecting the fact that they served and they were there.
It’s so ironic that we liberals now argue with conservatives that they should respect the vets.
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:20 am
You, my friend, are a joke.
I gave numerous examples in my post. Kristen Breitweiser. Cindy Sheehan. Tammy Duckworth. John Kerry.
Cutting and Running means cutting your losses and leaving a war. I don’t really see why everyone runs from the term (sorry, let me rephrase that according to Duckworth’s disability so as not to offend?).
This isn’t about her service you blind idiot. This is about her opponent’s view of her plan now. The fact that you haul out her service and use that as a call for respect even though her service has nothing to do with her plan really proves that you’re just following along with the mentality I clearly explained early.
Don’t question what she wants to do in Iraq because she served there!
Give me a break.
You guys need a bogeyman really bad and this one is really easy and convenient.