Kvatch Kvestions - Who supports the troops?

We won? We lost? Who cares! It's over and it's time to change the tone of the debate.

So I ask you: Who really supports the troops?

The party that sponsors the bill that will bring the troops home?
Or the party that accuses their opponents of 'turning their backs on the troops'?

The Senate leader that understands that the cause is lost?
Or the Senator that wants more troops to die for that lost cause?

The presidential candidate that calls the war a mistake?
Or the President that will keep the troops there indefinitely?

No matter what bill comes out of Congress, Bush will attach a signing statement that says he's not required to implement the timetable. In other words, Bush will mandate that more American soldiers die for a cause that was probably lost on the day he declared victory.

We know which party abandoned the troops, and Democrats need to be accusing the GOP of it in every speech!


Bush is coming to town tomorrow to sell the war as part of the "Global War of Terror" to the only Kool-aid drinking people who still believe it. Wish I didn't have to work, otherwise I'd join the protest.
I'm getting really sick of Bush's nasally whining about Congress getting down to business and supporting the troops.

Lew - I'll skip work! Where and when, buddy?
The Bushies idea of supporting the troops is vastly different than mine, and more than 70% of the country.

It's all a bunch of crap. He doesn't give a fuck about the troops. Dead soldiers are only collateral damage in their grand plans.

The Dems are starting to show some backbone, but not nearly enough.
If that's support, I don't want any of those Republicans to be supporting me in ANYTHING! All they do is ruin, deplete and destroy.
George W. Bush likes to kill people.
He and his little henchman Gonzo killed a LOT of people in Texas. Now they're discovering that Texas has the HIGHEST rate of provable false convictions in the nation.

George W. Bush would be Cho Seung-Hui if he hadn't been born with his head in a silver chamberpot.
Good Kvestion Kvatch! If the Dems are supporting the troops they do need to step up and hard.
John, Lew... What we need are simple signs everywhere that say:

"The GOP supports more dead troops!"

Lizzy... Agreed more backbone is needed here. Though I have to say that Reid is really starting find his voice.
Peacechick... Well they're not. So don't worry! ;-) I mean...look at what they did to the Medicare drug negotiation bill. Big Pharma over seniors any day.

Sewmouse... When you kill more people than most third world nations, you're gonna have a problem with false convictions. But to be fair you can't be a Democrat in Texas and say that you're going to kill less murderers.

Mary... Thanks! This message is getting lost in the media--needs more attention.
Breaking the military to the point where to continue further would require a draft...I'd call that support! /snark
There was an oped in the NYTimes or some such paper the other day that suggested we let the president have his wish granted - a blank check, but that we simply raise the taxes to fund it. In other words, no more on-credit wars allowed. This would place the burden squarely and overtly on the taxpayer...only then would we see who really supports the war. Anything less would allow people to continue to put there money somewhere they are not talking
You don't support people by seeing them as an expendable underclass.
Amen! Preach it!
Fred... One wonders if that was the aim all along. In a world where the US intends to enforce some kind of hegemony, the military will need a draft. Of course the fact that it would mean agreeing with Rep. Murtha, might keep the 'Thuglicans from instituting it right there.

WS... That's an excellent idea, really give everyone a taste of what this is costing!
Nvisiblewmn... A highly trained yet expendable underclass.

Kathy... Thanks, but I'm still at a loss as to how to get this kind of message out. The Democrats seem to be helpless in attempting to control the way this is shaping up. Why can't they just call a spade a spade?
Over at "Major Conflict", J. Marquis posted an article which says the "mission" is changing again. It is changing from helping the Iraqi police and military to stand up and take control, back to defeating the insurgents at all costs. It's a good article, worth checking out.

I'm not surprised that the "mission" is changing yet again. I think the deaths of every person who has died in the Iraq fiasco can be laid at the doorstep of the White House.

I think some smartass Democrat ought to put forth some legislation that requires the president of the U.S. to attend the funeral of every fallen soldier. Even if something like that passed, Bush would veto it or add a signing statement, because his job is a "lot of hard work". Besides, even if he had been made to attend over 3200 funerals of American troops over the past four years, it probably still wouldn't sink into his thick head just how destructive he is to our country and to the world. Because he is unable to feel empathy, it wouldn't make any difference.

Oregon's governor, Ted Kulongoski, served dutifully in the military and attends the funeral of every fallen Oregon soldier. I don't believe it is for the sake of politics, either. I believe he feels it is his heartfelt duty as a leader. Why aren't we angry enough to demand that kind of leadership from The Holy Lord Fucktardius and his simian attendants?

Add a comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link