Friday, August 17, 2007

Republicans Support the Troops Unless They're Running for Office

The patriots at the The Lone Star Times want to thank Lt. Col Rick Noriega for his long as he doesn't mention it ever again.

Noriega, who is one of several Texas Democrats running against John Cornyn for U.S. Senate, has served in the military since 1979, including a stint in Afghanistan. He also distinguished himself in the National Guard during the Katrina disaster. And now, as his campaign notes, he is preparing for a two week stint in the National Guard.

But mention any of this, and Republicans cry foul.
Is it a proper way to advance your political career by shouting about your service every chance you get? The reason I ask is because when I see advertisements like this, it makes me question the person’s motivation for his service. Is it really for the country, for duty, for honor? Or is it to have another feather in your cap to attack a political
Okay, this is going to be a long slog of a campaign, so let's make sure we understand the rules of engagement (sticking with the war metaphor.) If Democrats call for an end to the Iraq war they are "cut and run cowards." If they tout their own military experiences as proof that they have the leadership qualities necessary to lead our country, they are crass manipulators. If they offer even modest proposals to provide some relief to our suicidal troops, they are undercutting our leaders.
Mr. Noriega is not the right man for Texas. In Mr. Noriega’s campaign email, he derided current Texas Sen. John Cornyn for voting against a bill requiring the military to keep soldiers on leave longer. Sen. Cornyn thinks that should be a military decision.
It's ironic that the gist of the LST post is to excoriate a fan of Noriega's for overstepping the line and insulting the family of a deceased military serviceman. Yet this post is insulting to our servicemen and women on so many levels.

The writer ends with a plug for Cornyn, who never served a day of military service, for standing up for American values, like torture.
Also in Mr. Noriega’s email, he lashed out at Sen. Cornyn for voting against a bill banning the use of torture on terrorists detained in the field. Sen. Cornyn recognizes that putting women’s underwear on the heads of terrorists isn’t life threatening.
Frankly, I'd be willing to forgo the call for an apology to Noriega, if Cornyn would personally put that theory to the test.


Anonymous said...

The editor of Lone Star Times is a 31 year old chicken hawk. He pumps his fist in the air calling for war, but will not fight himself. He is truly a puss and yet he questions a man who actually spent 14 monts in the heat and sand.

I would ignore him. He is a pissant.

I have banned him from my blog already.

Anonymous said...

This is some young pissant kid attacking Rick Noriega's strength.

This is where Noriega has it all over Cornyn.

Anonymous said...

Where do you guys get this stuff?

Anonymous said...

I have banned him from my blog already.

Hmmm but I see you had no trouble going to LST and spewing your crappola.

Nope you did not even have the tact to discuss the issue. Launch right into a personal attack.


At least Mr. Colby, the managaement and mods at LST invite opposing opinion. Even your drivel is welcome


boadicea said...

Well done, TT. I salute you.

Even if I do need a healthy helping of brain bleach following that visual of Cornyn with granny knickers on his silver haid...

texas toad said...


Granny knickers - nice touch.

alan78733 said...

Support the Troops???
I'm a veteran who placed a 4x8 plywood sign that said 'Honor Our Troops' & an American flag at the site of the future Westbank public library last Sunday. They tore it down Monday afternoon so I put up a 2nd sign and flag Tuesday morning. I guess the library board is upset that Mrs. Bush saw the sign because they have filed crimnal mischief charges against me. Soldiers and marines bleed so they can read, but they won't honor them.

Matt Bramanti said...

The editor of Lone Star Times is a 31 year old chicken hawk.

John appears to be incapable of uttering correct, verifiable statements of fact.