I'm tired of `Supporting the troops'

`Supporting the troops' is a phrase one hears a lot these days.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of hearing it. Talk is cheap..on both sides.

On the one hand, we have liberals who say they support our troops by undercutting their attempts to perform the mission they've been given at every turn. This involves not only political dissent but things like releasing classified military information and obstructing the military's efforts to recruit. You have Senators like Dick Durbin comparing them to the Nazis, John Kerry calling them stupid for serving, and Barack Obama referring to their deaths as `unnecessary'..which to my mind is pretty much the same thing. It is a way of advising people not to serve their country's military, as Congressman John Murtha did.

What's even worse is the obscene fraternization with politicians like these for political gain with personalities and organizations on the Angry Left like Code Pink, Michael Moore and Markos Moulitsas at Daily Kos, who've referred to them as `mercenaries,' and reinforced the leftist stereotype of the `dumb grunt' too stoopid or unlucky to avoid having to defend their country. Some of these people on the Angry Left have given money and support openly to our enemies, and even gone so far as to taunt brave wounded soldiers recovering at Walter Reed hospital.... men who in many cases are physically unable to give these `activists' the answer they deserve.

Now of course, some of these same congressmen have provided the ultimate message of `support' by voting for a resolution in the House of Representatives that strengthens our enemies and lets out troops know that the very government that ordered them there is the first place thinks what they're doing is worthless.

Admittedly, some of them were merely voicing disapproval of a highly questionable strategy, an understandable position. But the majority were simpling pandering to the Angry left for political gain without having the courage to risk a political hit by `not supporting the troops' and ending this war by cutting off the funding. In any event, the message this sent was not lost on our enemies or our friends, and it was a singularly disgraceful act.

On the other side of the coin, you have the president and some self identified `conservatives' who likewise `support the troops'. Instead of using our military's brilliant victory in Iraq as a springboard and a base against the other terrorist supporting jihadi regimes in the Middle East and defeating our enemies, President Bush committed them to a no-win war of attrition with ridiculous rules of engagement that handcuffed our men in uniform and put the lives and `rights' of our enemies over those of our troops.

Rather than our country's freedom and security being their main concern, President Bush and his allies focused on the chimera of `Arab democracy' in Iraq and pleasing our `moderate Muslim allies' like the Saudis - which meant their `freedom' to export jihad to America, vote into power whatever anti-American regimes they wanted, steal aid money wholesale and collaborate with our enemies took precedence over America's freedom and security.

Listen to the man who called himself a `war president' as he responds to questions from the dinosaur media about Iran openly supplying arms and training to those who are targeting our soldiers:

"What we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that... and we also know that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. That's a known. What we don't know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds force to do what they did."


"My job is to protect our troops, and when we find devices that are in that country that are hurting our troops, we're going to do something about it, pure and simple.... Does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops. That's what that means."

Whom does he think he's kidding? This from the same man who promulgated the so-called Bush doctrine, who said over and over that the key to winning this war was to engage the countries that harbor, finance and arm our enemies?

Apparently there's nothing President Bush won't do to protect our troops..except let them fight the war they should have fought from the beginning and stop the flow of munitions and military like the Qods force at the source, in Iran. Or get on the wrong side of our `eternal friends,' the Saudis.

Iran is targeting our troops, threatening to shut down the Persian Gulf, and is rapidly seeking nuclear weapons. And, in response our president bends over to assure the dinosaur media, his opposition in congress and of course, America's enemies in the Middle East and elsewhere that there's no `pretext for war', and that all those fine words about `protecting the troops' was just more overblown rhetoric.

Is that any better than what the Left is doing? Not as far as I'm concerned.

To me, supporting the troops is neither saluting a bunch of graves, or using it as a catchphrase to camouflage genuinely anti-military feelings. In a very real sense, it means supporting the country and ourselves as a free people.

It means supporting victory, and giving our troops the tools and the leadership to achieve it. It means putting our nation first, and supporting the men who defend it in prosecuting this war until we face a defeated, humiliated enemy, with the creed of jihad and Islamic fascism totally discredited so that its resurgence is as unlikely as the resurgence of fascism in Germany or Japan.

That's what this war is really about, and that's what victory in this war is going to look like. I and many of my fellow Americans realized it a long time ago, even if our commander in chief doesn't seem to like the idea.

The `Decider' and his advisers might want to take a look at that when they're trying to figure out why the president's poll numbers are plummeting south.