Support The Troops?

Now that the RNC is, thankfully, over, I would like to make an observation while shaking my index finger in a scolding manner for those of you that are even thinking of voting Republican in the forthcoming election.

Especially those of you that are the “support the troops” variety.

The Republican sure did make every effort possible to give the faux appearance of being pro troop or pro veteran. I guess I should also shake my finger at the main stream media in attendance because they seemed to be in some intoxicated euphoria, hanging on every Republican lie, not challenging a single thing. Not saying, as I no doubt would, WTF are you guys talking about.

From what I did painstakingly see of the RNC confirmed my thoughts about a party going down for the third time, drowning in a cesspool of lies, perversions and criminal activity of their own making. But hearing all the support the troop’s rhetoric really seemed to infuriate veterans from wars past and present with offense after offense after offense.

As Joe Biden would say, their silence was deafening. The part that stuck out most in my mind was that the GOP candidate for President, you know the war hero, was one word mentioned about taking care of those that have served when they come home. Based on his record in voting for benefits for those that served, who could blame him.

But with exploding rates of cases of PTSD, suicide, homelessness, among other problems these American citizens face, it is a problem that must be addressed. Especially from our next President. But form the Republican candidate – not a single word was spoken.

Not one.

Which is not really that uncommon from Republicans. People that consider themselves Republican have committed many sins in regards to support the troops including Rush Limbaugh’s phony soldiers accusation against servicemen that disagreed with Bush’s tragic failed policies on Iraq and Afghanistan. Remember that outpouring of Republican support for the troops they say they love so much?

And who could forget their fake outrage when General Wesley Clark pointed out that being a POW does not qualify a person for Presidential duty or Donald Rumsfeld’s insulting “we go to war with the army we have” comment or the biggest insult to American troops: Walter Reed and the underfunding of Veterans Administration.

But it doesn’t end there. The straight talk express seems to speak with a forked tongue. Allow me to point out that:

• The Republican candidate voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments.


• The Republican candidate voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.


• The Republican candidate voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.


• The Republican candidate voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq.


• The Republican candidate urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.


• The Republican candidate voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000.

When it comes to their claim to support the troops, the Republican candidate and his party are flat-out liars.

The message is simple - if you really support the troops, stop voting Republican and bring them home.

Buy Fed Up A Damn Beer!

Gap Between Fantasy And Reality

Today we have still more evidence of the enormous gap between:

(a) public opinion regarding whether we should withdraw from Iraq and
(b) claims by the political and media establishment about public opinion on that question.

A newly released Gallup poll asked this question, the central question -- really the only relevant question -- regarding what we should do about Iraq:

If you had to choose, which do you think is better for the U.S. -- to keep a
significant number of troops in Iraq until the situation gets better, even if
that takes many years, or to set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq and
to stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq?

Here is the answer, consistent with virtually every other poll that has asked the same question for many, many months:

SET TIMETABLE FOR WITHDRAWL

All Americans - 60%

Democrats - 81%

Republicans - 32%

Independents - 61%

KEEP TROOPS IN IRAQ UNTIL SITUATION IMPROVES

All Americans - 35%

Democrats - 15%

Republicans - 65%

Independents - 32%

The reason why this is the central question is because it describes the two sides of the mainstream political debate. Keeping troops in Iraq until the situation is better, no matter how long it takes, is the Bush/McCain position. Setting a timetable for withdrawal and adhering to it regardless of what is happening there -- i.e., regardless of whether things are better or we're "winning" or "losing" -- is, roughly speaking, the view of the Democratic presidential candidates and, even more so, the defining premise of the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq sponsored by 42 Democratic Congressional candidates.

American public opinion isn't "divided" or "split" on this question. There are no pro-war trends here that signal the Iraq War is about to become a huge asset for the McCain campaign. Nor are any of the other cliches used repeatedly by the establishment press to claim that unconditional withdrawal is a politically unpopular position even remotely true.

To the contrary, Americans overwhelmingly favor unconditional withdrawal and it's not even close. They favor that by a 25-point margin, and it's a 29-point margin among independents. Those are huge margins. Very few public policy questions of any significance produce margins that large. And the whole point of asking the question this way -- do you favor withdrawal "regardless of what is going on in Iraq?" -- is to exclude the excuse made by John McCain, The Politico and Cokie Roberts that Americans only want to withdraw once we've "won" or once we've created a peaceful democracy there.

For many reasons, the pro-war political establishment doesn't want to leave Iraq. That's fine. They're entitled to that opinion. But Americans overwhelmingly reject that view. All evidence conclusively demonstrates that. While there are mild differences as to the amount of time the timetables should allow, Americans want, by large margins, to set a timetable to withdraw from Iraq unconditionally -- not if we're winning, not if things are improved, not if we've created a stable democracy, but regardless of those issues. War advocates who keep saying otherwise are just spouting factually false -- and profoundly anti-democratic -- propaganda.

ORIGINALLY POSTED HERE