Bush finally shamed into (promising) support for the troopsOne of the bills of goods that many hard-line conservatives are trying to sell to Americans is that they and President Bush support the troops. How sending them off to die or be maimed in a war launched for bogus reasons constitutes supporting them is beyond me. Anyways, Bush is a tough talker. He is decisive ("The Decider," if you will). He believes in Good and Evil and nothing in between. He makes his decisions and never looks back. The troops like this, according to the conventional wisdom.
According to an urban legend I've come across, then-President Bill Clinton supposedly hated the military so much that he banned them from being in uniform in his presence. Given that there are uniformed soldiers all over the White House, I can't imagine that this is true. But why let reality interfere with a good rant. Don't question what you hear, if it's what you want to hear. That's the philosophy underpining (and undermining) the Bush administration.
Only in bizarro world is a (mythical) ban on wearing a military uniform a worse crime than sending young men off to die in a war waged under fake pretexts. I guess if GIs wear their uniform in their coffin, everything must be ok.
Anyways, it's fairly clear that this administration doesn't give a crap about the actual well-being of the troops, and is only interested in using them as a propaganda ploy to blackmail opponents of their militarism into submission. This is old news. It worked pretty well for a few years. But now people are finally seeing through it.
The Washington Post did a disturbing series on the lamentable conditions in veterans' hospitals. These problems are not new. My brother, who served in the Marines and still has friends in active duty, first telling me about them years ago. He's sent several articles to me on the topic over the years.
For all the professed 'outrage' by the White House, why have they waited six years to feign anger on the topic about this? Why did it take a newspaper article (from the supposed troop-hating liberal media) to embarass them into (promising) action? Hasn't President George "I support the troops" Bush made enough photo op visits to Walter Reed to notice these things? Or maybe he was more interested in the cameramen then the soldiers injured in the war of aggression he ordered.
It really begs the question: how did I, a non-soldier, become aware of these problems years before the commander-in-chief of the armed forces? Then again, I knew Saddam's Iraq was no threat to America long before Bush finally admitted that he had no weapons of mass destruction. I don't have access to highly classified information. I don't consider myself a particular genius. I just pay attention and use common sense. Why can't the president do the same?
If you want to support the troops, stop bashing irrelevant scapegoats like Michael Moore, Jane Fonda and the Dixie Chicks and start doing something that will ACTUALLY HELP THE TROOPS. There are some people who collect personal items and other goodies to send to the troops. That's worthy. I go out there and try to get the politicians to bring the troops home, so they don't have to die for a freedom Iraqis can only win on their own (the war having nothing to do with our own freedom).
I'm sick and tired of people who only slap a bumper sticker on their car or wear a ribbon on their lapel acting like they're high and mighty, acting like they're actually doing something to support the troops. People who brag loudly about being supporting the troops and denounce anyone who doesn't make a big show of doing the same, it's time for them to put up or shut up. Let them demand that the commander-in-chief of the military actually support the troops. Let them demand that he ensure they receive proper medical care care. We should all demand he do this. He was the one who ordered them into this insane war in the first place. He's the one who created their problems. It's up to him to ensure that they get fixed.