He's going to give all a dose of the ol' higher patriotism that soi-disant dissidents are always congratulating themselves about. You know, "dissent is the highest form of self-congratulation", or something like that.
This reminds me of this spoof from the Blame Bush blog, from a few years ago.
"The meeting lasted for another 4 hours, and then we finally agreed on "Support Our Troops*" for a name. Tomorrow, we will hold our first "Support Our Troops*" rally out at Fort Lewis, so I'm probably going to be up all night sewing swastikas onto U.S. flags."
Can one support "the troops" without supporting the war? If not, why not use more honest slogans?
ReplyDeleteAre the dozens of generals critical of the war unpatriotic?
Is Alan Greenspan a leftie-stooge for suggesting the war is motivated by access to oil?
Is it possible that "the troops" who are donating heavily to Ron Paul, no longer believe in their mission?
Is it shameful to mask your support for empire behind "the troops"?
There is no "the troops". There are thousands of unique individuals with differing motivations and opinions.
Like the Van Morrison song says, it's too late to stop now. If it was oil that was the overriding factor, we could have secured it by cutting the same sleazy deals with Saddam as the Europeans did.
ReplyDeleteOf course there are troops who are sick of the war, or who never agreed with it in the first place. I'd be checking the pulse of the body politic if that weren't the case. It's the fact that we have to go to the blogs or other such outlets to find news of troops who don't feel that way, which makes me question the MSM's good faith in reporting this war.