D
emagogue:
A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.
Demagoguery:
(from Greek demos, "people", and agogos, "leading") refers to a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, fears, and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalistic or populist themes.
P
olitical Opportunism:
A political style of aiming to increase one's political influence at almost any price, or a political style which involves seizing every and any opportunity to extend one's political influence, whenever such opportunities arise.
Troop Surge for an Unpopular War
Sixty percent of Americans, apparently, do not approve of sending additional troops into Iraq. Concomitantly with this,several Democrats who had been weeks ago clamoring for Bush to fight a more effective war, now are saying they won't support a surge in troop levels.
I am sometimes disappointed in my fellow Americans. I don't think that enough of them realize the importance of winning the war in Iraq. They just want the problem to go away.
Demagoging Iraq
I am more than disappointed in some of the Democrats, and Republicans, who are talking of not funding the surge. They claim they support the troops, yet it can hardly be supportive to deny our troops extra help in fighting the war.
Can you be against a troop surge and still be a person of integrity? Yes, of course, if you really believe in your heart that we should just get out of Iraq now. The problem I have is not with these true believers in withdrawal; rather, I have a problem with those who are just tired of Iraq, unaware of its importance, or who are looking for political opportunity. It's quite a coincidence that several politicians are suddenly getting so vocal against the war at the same time that Bush's poll numbers are down, and when the American people seem to be disapproving of the war. It smacks of political opportunism and demagoguery of the worst sort. The victims of it are the soldiers in Iraq, and the American people, who will be less safe if we lose the war.
Integrity, Spinelessness, Scoundrel-osity and Evil
I think in a time of war if you vote according to the most recent polls, instead of voting according to what you think the troops need, that you are a scoundrel. I think in the case of some politicians, like Edward Kennedy, that the man is just pure evil. He sees the American people want the troops out, and now all of a sudden he becomes very visible in fighting for just that. He doesn't give a fig about our soldiers, nor about America. He has only one goal, that the Republicans be humiliated and that the Democrats expand their power. He is a despicable man.
Democrats remain split in their approach to Iraq, which gives me some hope for the party. They got their Blue Dogs elected, and some of them, along with the notorious Nancy Pelosi and other realists-for-the-moment, seem to be leaning towards acting responsibly with regard to the war. I personally will be grateful to her and others like her for this sign of character. I will not forgive, nor forget, the Democrats and Republicans who are demagoging Iraq, and showing a lack of spine.
Edward Kennedy will go down in my history as the Benedict Arnold of his family.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Click here to get a button link to this blog:
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!
Subscribe to my feed
Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.
Technorati Tags for this post: demagogue, demagoguery, political opportunism, Nancy Pelosi, Edward Kennedy, demagogy, Iraq War, troop surge, troop withdrawal, Benedict Arnold, Blue Dog Democrats
Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth
Forgive me for saying that I saw this post coming a mile away once I saw Eddie Kennedy spouting off about hijacking funding. I have to agree that he's being dispicable with this latest antic. At the same time though, I feel another "Why Bush is an Idiot" post coming on. Here's my take on the whole "surge" idea:
ReplyDeleteA) Apparently, there is a large contingency of GENERALS and MILITARY leaders at the Pentagon saying that an increase of troops of only 20 thousand is a bad idea. These are the people who have been shot/shot at in combat, know miltary strategy better than any of us and are the ones that should be trusted, right?
B) A bipartisan commitee of past presidential cabinet members came up with a series of suggestions to help the current president through this mess. These are people who have successfully worked through international crises in the past and are people who's opinions SHOULD be trusted, right?
and
C) Military leaders are going along with this plan contingent on (yet another) promise from the Iraqi government to give full cooperation and support politically and militarily. This "promise" should be trusted, right? Uhh, right....
Despite the reservations and recommendations of the military and Iraq comittee, the president wants to INSTEAD slowly put more troops into Iraq- meaning the SAME soldiers are RETURNING to Iraq before they planned/intended to.
That's a surefire way to boost morale!
Obviously we don't have the numbers on the ground to overrun an insurgency and another 20 thousand isn't significant enough. We'd probably need 200 thousand to make a difference (in Gulf War 1, we had 600 thousand troops!). The problem isn't in a lack of political support, lack of funding or a lack of materials, it's a lack of LEADERSHIP. The president has shown his ineptitude in this conflict (as you will agree) and obviously STILL has no viable plan to make it as successful as possible. I just wish those "demogogues" (Eddie et al.) would say that the "plan" to put a few more troops on the ground sucks and a much better one needs to be put into place rather than trying to use political muscle to get Bush to capitulate.
paz, I got your comment, and I believe I have your permission to use your comments as a post. I think your response is a good one, so I'm going to use it for tomorrow's post. I'll later publish the comment also as a comment.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Rock
My, My, Mr Rock, I see you have repented from your youthful indiscretion. I love your words, “the Benedict Arnold of his family.” More truthful words were never spoken, the problem is that there is another generation of the “family” who are much more like Ted that his elder brother, JFK. For the life of me, I do not understand why the American People are not ready to commit to victory in Iraq, I suppose it is the result of three years of demagoguery. It is sad what has happened to all the Americanism that existed to 9/12/2001. Where have we gone in such a short time?
ReplyDeleteI told you I was commenting on a left wing blog, I lost it today when the subject was "Mission Accomplished." They have nothing, just keep repeating old news.
Rock, You'll find Kennedy a very good man when sober, now, of course, can you find him sober?
ReplyDeleteLet's turn back the hands of time. To even just 14 months ago, how many of the Democrats ranting today where ranting for the last two years that more troops were needed in Iraq? It's the flavor of the month brought to you by your local liberal media. Like you said, when they post a "scientific" poll suggesting that America is ready to pull out.
Rock, of course you can use what I wrote for a post, just make sure you cut me a royalty check when you make some money off of it! Just kidding. Hopefully I won't divulge too much in my comments today.
ReplyDeleteSgt Dub, what people have been saying is that yes, we need MORE troops, but MORE should mean ENOUGH. You know that 20 thousand spread around Baghdad and Al-Anbar is just a drop in the bucket- and will probably be ineffective, especially when the Mahdi Army (who it now appears we may be on a collision course with) has approximately 60,000 armed gunmen who know their urban terrain better than we do.
Sgt Charlie, to answer your question (as someone who is in complete disagreement
with this war in Iraq) it's not that people are opposed to "victory" and won't commit to it in Iraq. Trust me, the sooner these troops come home, the better. They (we) are opposed to the comitting MORE resources, MORE time, and MORE body bags to a cause with a flawed, ever-changing rationale. If this much effort was being put into finding Osama, there wouldn't be much to argue about. There was/is TONS of support for the effort in Afghanistan, here and abroad- but Iraq is a different story. Over the years, we've all heard the speeches of
"Mission Accomplished", "The situation is improving daily", "The insurgency is in it's death throes", blah blah blah, and the reality is that those were all lies told to us by the Bush administration to maintain support. How many MORE lies (misstatements...) do we need to hear?
paz, thanks. I know you were kidding, but just to clarify, in case there is any misunderstanding, blogs like mine are still too small to make any money. You need about 100,000 visitors a month to make anything, and while I've reached about 5,000 a month, that's still not enough to profit at all. I look upon the ads I put into my blog as a service, just an indicator for readers where they might go if they want to read substantial stuff. Otherwise, I just try to make sure they are all on topic, at least for the blog in general.
ReplyDeleteAs you would discover, blogging is not a money-maker until and if you attain the status of an Ann Coulter and company. So, sure, I'll split any revenue I get from your post. That's a deal.
Thanks for commenting, and I'll get to commenting on your other comments later.
Rock
Sarge Charlie, thanks for your comments. You said:
ReplyDeleteMy, My, Mr Rock, I see you have repented from your youthful indiscretion. I love your words, “the Benedict Arnold of his family.” More truthful words were never spoken, the problem is that there is another generation of the “family” who are much more like Ted that his elder brother, JFK.
I think the Kennedy’s got to believing their own press, which is always a bad idea. People should never try to live up to their brothers or sisters. They should just do the right things, and their reputations will take care of themselves. If I saw a Kennedy strong on defense and pro-business, then I”d be impressed.
For the life of me, I do not understand why the American People are not ready to commit to victory in Iraq, I suppose it is the result of three years of demagoguery. It is sad what has happened to all the Americanism that existed to 9/12/2001. Where have we gone in such a short time?
I was watching a show the other day about the history of the Superbowl, and saw the one just after 9/11, with Whitney Huston singing the national anthem with tears in her eyes, and thousands of fans waving the American flag. I say, “Have You Forgotten?” America. Yes, I agree Charlie.
I told you I was commenting on a left wing blog, I lost it today when the subject was "Mission Accomplished." They have nothing, just keep repeating old news.
That’s too bad. I hope you gave them something to think about.
Thanks Sarge.
Rock
Sgt Dub, thanks for your comments. You said:
ReplyDeleteRock, You'll find Kennedy a very good man when sober, now, of course, can you find him sober?
I think this is the first time I’m going to disagree with you Sgt. I don’t find that Kennedy has any redeeming qualities, drunk or sober. He literally, I think, tries to be a hero like his brothers, but can’t match them—so he has instead become a populist, or in my words, a demagogue. He cares about Ted Kennedy, not the American people, not the soldiers, and not America.
Let's turn back the hands of time. To even just 14 months ago, how many of the Democrats ranting today where ranting for the last two years that more troops were needed in Iraq? It's the flavor of the month brought to you by your local liberal media. Like you said, when they post a "scientific" poll suggesting that America is ready to pull out.
You’re right. The Dems are pouncing on this. So are some Republicans. It appears that the Dems are going to hold a non-binding but embarrassing vote on the “surge” next week. Then, it is expected that sometime later in the year they will actually start withholding funds from the increased deployment. I can think of no lower kind of action than to politicize a war. I hope the American people see this going on.
Thanks Sgt. Be safe.
Rock
paz, thanks for your comments. You said:
ReplyDeleteSgt Dub, what people have been saying is that yes, we need MORE troops, but MORE should mean ENOUGH. You know that 20 thousand spread around Baghdad and Al-Anbar is just a drop in the bucket- and will probably be ineffective, especially when the Mahdi Army (who it now appears we may be on a collision course with) has approximately 60,000 armed gunmen who know their urban terrain better than we do.
paz, read today’s post where I answer this critique.
Sgt Charlie, to answer your question (as someone who is in complete disagreement
with this war in Iraq) it's not that people are opposed to "victory" and won't commit to it in Iraq. Trust me, the sooner these troops come home, the better. They (we) are opposed to the committing MORE resources, MORE time, and MORE body bags to a cause with a flawed, ever-changing rationale.
paz, yes, you do make some good points. I do believe, however, that you are missing the significance of the effect of Iraq on the future peace of the world. This is an important mission, regardless of how botched it has been.
If this much effort was being put into finding Osama, there wouldn't be much to argue about. There was/is TONS of support for the effort in Afghanistan, here and abroad- but Iraq is a different story.
Part of this, paz, is that Bush has never adequately explained the importance of Iraq. He repeats his talking points but doesn’t explain his worldview. This is Bush’s fault. Regardless, Iraq is squarely in the middle of an important region; yes, with a huge cache of oil; and in the middle of turmoil. If Iran takes over this area, they can cause great damage to world peace. For example, Israel will be annihilated.
Over the years, we've all heard the speeches of "Mission Accomplished", "The situation is improving daily", "The insurgency is in it's death throes", blah blah blah, and the reality is that those were all lies told to us by the Bush administration to maintain support. How many MORE lies (misstatements...) do we need to hear?
Yes, you’re right. Bush has chosen to talk to the American people as if they were children. Big mistake. Americans are sophisticated enough to hear the whole truth, and make up their own minds about things. Treating the people like children only reinforces their opinion of him that he has no smarts. Too bad. He has chosen a flawed communication strategy, and he’s paying for it with everything he holds dear. Maybe you could have gotten away with this approach in WWII, when most people were automatically patriotic; but now people get their info instantly, and aren’t prey to simplistic pronouncements repeated over and over.
He also has to overcome the virulent left, who will obstruct any war, even if it was against Martians trying to destroy the world. Cindy Sheehan would be protesting, “Martians deserve habeus corpus too!”
Thanks, paz.
Rock