Most who attack the Democrats interchange the words "troops" and "mission" in such a way to demonize those who don't support the current situation in Iraq. So I feel it's necessary to clarify.
Is breaking down random doors in hopes to find insurgents any sort of quality strategy? What about adding more troops to try to defeat people who aren't afraid to die? What about sending more troops into an area where both sides of the "civil war", Sunnis and Shiites, feel that it's alright to attack foreign troops? We're putting troops in harms way. I don't support that strategy. I don't support that mission.
I absolutely support the troops. I would like to see them out of harms way. I would like to see them home, safe, and with their families. So because I don't want these troops to be part of this mistake of a mission, that makes against the troops? No, that makes me against the mission.
See? There's a difference. I can have it both ways.
What about those who attack the Democrats? These people who claim to be the only ones who support the troops, unlike those evil, terrible, "I hate America" Democrats. These are the same people who feel it necessary to send Americans into a dangerous area with a plan that has no chance at complete success. These are the same people who ensure quality care for those injured during this mission and then supply them poor conditions are unkempt facilities such as Walter Reed. I can clearly see now which side is the true supporter of the troops in Iraq.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I've actually written here a more detailed explanation here for the reasons why the Middle East is in conflict with the West. I don't think it matters if "Sunnis" or "Shiites" end up with majority control of Iraq; ultimately, they'll use Iraqi oil wells as a means to manipulate the West, because when it boils down to it, they're all a bunch of totalitarian assholes.
My problems with Democrats in Congress comes when they try to cut funding for the troops already in Iraq. If they want to oppose sending more troops - okay. If they want to set a deadline for when all troops will be out of Iraq - okay. But by cutting funding for troops that are in Iraq, they are not supporting the troops. They are hurting the Americans who are trying to protect us. That is where the Democrats can't have it both ways - you can't support the troops and cut their funding at the same time.
~Jax
"Everyone has the right to their own opinion, I just prefer mine."
That's why they are not cutting funding. The recent bill that passed in the House of Representatives yesterday gave President Bush MORE MONEY than he originally asked for. That's not cutting funding, that's providing for our brave men and women.
Well said. There is a great difference between the mission and the troops. It's unfortunate that others don't realize that and instead resort to the name calling and other partisan BS that has become synonymous with the war in Iraq.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
"May the road rise up to meet you. May the wind be always at your back. May the warm rays of the sun fall upon your home."
Patriotism and supporting the troops is something that ALL Americans should be able to rally behind, no matter whether you're Republican, Democrat, whatever. That shouldn't even be part of the debate. You either support the war, or you don't, but either way you still have to support the people, YOUR fellow CITIZENS that are risking their LIVES for this pointless war.
---------
Stephen Colbert: Enemy of the Democrat?