Tuesday, October 2, 2007

I support the troops the bestest!

"Most Americans oppose fully funding President Bush's $190 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan"

Washington Post/ABC News Poll:

Question: Do you think the Congress should approve $190 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next year or reduce the amount?

43% said to "Reduce sharply"
27% said to "Approve all money"
23% said to "Reduce somewhat"
3% said to "Approve no money"
3% had "No opinion"

"Part of the displeasure with Congress stems from the stalemate between Democrats and the White House over Iraq policy. Most Americans do not believe Congress has gone far enough in opposing the war, with liberal Democrats especially critical of their party's failure to force the president into a significant change in policy."

We really need to have a dialogue about what it means to support our military. It is unfair that the military is manipulated by all sides to support whatever position is important: removing the funding for the troops means you are against the troops because you wont give them the necessary equipment to fight; funding the troops means that you are against the troops because you are keeping them in a war zone.

What about the merits of continuing the actual war?!!

As with almost every issue that our Congress-people attempt to debate, the argument is reduced to a fight over semantics. Why not stop dancing around the subject and just come out with it?! If you support the war, say so and vote to fund the war. If you do not support the war, say so and vote to stop funding the war. Put your money where your mouth is and stop hiding behind this troop support rhetoric.

The issue is the war and not the troops. You must either support the war or not. All Americans support their military. It is nonsense to vote in favor of funding of the war because you support the troops, but then speak out against the merit of the war. Please stop pretending that this is a credible distinction that helps you save face.

The military will go off and fight wherever the President or Congress sends them (yes congress used to make decisions about declaring war; a long, long time ago). They don't wait for a gauge of troop support before they leave for war. They go. The least our representatives in government can do is debate the merits of the war we sent them to fight and stop bickering over who supports them the most.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I like the newest debate; "We must leave Iraq with honor!" What the heck does that mean? It is the same exact thing that Nixon said during the Vietnam war. Fun times.

Michael said...

Or the statement that we will not leave Iraq unless its on our own terms: I cant imagine a situation in which we would not leave Iraq on our own terms. Unless the Iraqis physically picked up all the US soldiers and put them on boats and airplanes and sent them back home kicking or screaming. Its like a huge, fat person saying he will only get up off the coach on his own terms: of course!! No one can move you!!

Michael said...

Honor should have started with a dialogue about Iraq and not simply a knee-jerk reaction to invade because the conditions seemed right.