Derek StaffansonSupporting the Troops
The Bush administration and the Republican party to which it belongs likes to claim that it is the party which supports the military and the troops.
Then why is it that the military doesn’t support the administration?
Okay, that is a gross oversimplification and a wild generalization.
But it is fascinating to see that there are eleven candidates running for congress this year who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan&mdash and ten of them are running as Democrats.
That’s ten of the eleven recent vet candidates who are running against this administration’s handling of Iraq, Afghanistan, and terrorism. Ten of the eleven military veterans who want to end the rule of the pseudo-patriotic, flag-waving, chest-pounding, party of hawks.
All I can say is: Go troops!
October 6th, 2006 at 8:07 am
Let’s see. Most members of the Bush administration have never served, and one of their first priorities was to reduce funding for the Veterans Administration. Then they took the country to war without giving us a (truthful) reason why, and without a good plan. Now, the US Army and Marine Corps are tied down in Iraq trying to do the impossible, referee a civil war and fight insurgents at the same time. Afghanistan is on its way to becoming as challenging a mission as Iraq. Unserviceable and battle-damaged vehicles are stacking up at depots. The Army has only two or three non-deployed active-duty brigades that have enough equipment and personnel to function, because limited resources have been spread too thinly. The government has spent more than $332 billion on Iraq so far, while readiness goes down the drain. But Congress just budgeted $20 million for a victory celebration in Washington next year, so maybe they know something we don’t?
October 6th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Don’ worry…be happy,.. don worry be happy now…