Can't back troops while opposing war
As we finally see the prospects of winning the war in Iraq, a contradictory catch-phrase of the liberal anti-war project in America becomes obvious. That is, the misguided notion that we could have ever "supported the troops" while opposing the war.
How typical of split-headed liberalism.
No thinking liberal (oxymoron?) can tell you what it means to "support" our troops, especially when they want us to lose the war.
How disappointed liberals will be when our troops arrive back home with a victory in Iraq and a stabilized government offering the Iraqi people the same freedom to reject their troops in a foreign war.
While I defend a liberal's right to be wrong on Iraq, my rights grant me the same freedom to reveal their short-sightedness. Would their emotionalism and passion similarly fight for my right to oppose their views?
When the political agenda of the Democrats equals the military defeat of American GIs, when is this treason?
When getting a Democrat back in the White House overrides defeating Ba'ath Nazism in Iraq, liberals are rightly symbolized by a shrill-voiced, red-faced Kennedy who should be embarrassed about his party.
How will CNN spin a military victory in Iraq? Will they even report it?
I support our troops in Iraq by agreeing with the decision to go to war against an ideology symbolized by Saddam the Terrorist, gassed children and mass graves. Nothing partisan about that.
Paul Bischoff
Wheaton