Debunking the "Support The Troops" sheep mentality

I had an interesting conversation with a guest in the restaurant the other day. She noticed the "Count Me Blue" bracelet that I've been wearing since the disastrous 2004 elections. I wear it with pride, but I'm not obnoxiously political (in person at least - this blog notwithstanding!), and I certainly won't discuss politics at work unless pressed. Anyway, she asked me what the bracelet meant, and I told her.

"Dumb Democrats," she teased, and we had a good laugh about it. Hey, I can take a ribbing, even about my political affiliations.

Then she said something that pissed me off. "I just don't like it when people don't support the troops," she whined. "People shouldn't criticize the troops while they are in the field."

I just smiled and walked off. Hey, I was at work, and alienating tables is never a good idea, especially when I'm working for a tip... and guests' hoped-for generosity. Anyway, the more I thought about it, the more angry I became.

On the drive home, I couldn't help but think of the trite but apropos quote often attributed to Oscar Wilde: "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." In the case of the war in Iraq, I have a hard time disagreeing.

I'm about had my fill of people, Republicans mostly, using the whole "Support the Troops" mantra to attempt to silence critics of the president's ill-conceived war in the Middle East. I often hear this from supporters of the president's policy in Iraq, and this includes Republican leaders who decry criticism of the use of our troops in Iraq: "People should not criticize the use of troops once they are in the field. The president made the decision, and they are there, so let's get behind them."

People who parrot the above quote without analyzing our troops use and deployment don't understand America, Democracy and freedom, and I'd also like to point out that these people have a very short memory span.

During the War in Kosovo, when President Clinton was in the Oval Office, it certainly was a different story. Let's travel back in time, shall we?

From Texas Governor George W. Bush...

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

Do I need to comment on the irony there?

From Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R)...

"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."

Don't worry, Rick. Your time is just about up, and come November, you will hopefully be home, unemployed, where you can ponder your hypocrisy and obsess over new ways on how to exclude homosexuals.

From Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of candidate George W. Bush...

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

From Tom Delay (Remember him?!?)...

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."

AND...

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today."

Was this about Kosovo in 1999, or Iraq in 2006? Can Tom DeLay see into the future? That would be the one quality that would be admirable in him.

AND...

"Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."

Okay, enough on DeLay. The irony here is thicker than his corruption file.

From Tony Snow (yes, THAT Tony Snow, the new White House Press Secretary)...

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo." (Fox News, 3/23/99)

Lastly, from Sean Hannity of Republican News Channel fame...

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" (Fox News, 4/6/99)

AND...

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it." (Fox News, 4/5/99)

Sure, Sean - we distort, you decide. The stench of hypocrisy is overwhelming.

The bottom line here is that Americans have every right to not only criticize why the troops were put into harm's way in Iraq in the first place, but whey they are still there. There is clear evidence that not enough troops were sent to do the job, and they are walking targets right now. I'm reminded of a John Kerry quote from Vietnam, and I'm paraphrasing to fit the war in Iraq: "Do you want to die in a hot, miserable land where the people mostly don't want us, all for a lie?" Oh, wait - Kerry was a coward - he went to Vietnam and won three purple hearts. Beetle Bailey has more combat experience than Dick and Bush. I'm always amazed when men who don't know the price of war are quick to rush into one. This was the argument that Republicans used against Clinton the "draft dodger" in '92, but it was inconvenient for them when Bush became president.

Another thing that annoys me is when I hear people who get annoyed with criticism of Bush or the way the country is headed. "If you don't like the US, leave!" they obnoxiously suggest. I always laugh when I hear this one. My first thought on that is, if you don't like the criticism, you leave. This is how a democracy works - people, events and policies get criticized, debated and analyzed - so deal with it.

Republicans continue to point out that many Democrats, including Kerry, voted for the war. Yep, they did, at first, when the "intelligence" was presented to them. When it was later revealed by Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill and others who were in the administration when these decisions were made that the intelligence was cooked, many Democrats said, "Wait a minute here." Then Republicans, hoping that people really weren't paying attention, simply said that the Democrats were flip floppers. Yea, right.

Democrats have the right to change their minds when new evidence comes to light, just as all Americans do, whether troops are in the field or not. Opinions evolve as events unfold. I'm still amazed that people continue to use the whole "We should support the troops while they are in the field" mantra. It's just a thinly disguised attempt to tell me to shut up. Well, I won't shut up, and I don't think any American should, as long as our troops continue to get cut down in the prime of their lives over lies about WMDs and the "threat" that Saddam posed.

If bin Laden wore a blue dress, the Republican-controlled Congress would have found him by now. Let's rename him Osama bin Lewinsky and send that scumbag Ken Starr after him. I'd give it about five days and we'd have Osama's head on a stick.