One day last week while I was in Washington I met up with an old ROTC buddy of mine and four of his friends. We were at one of my favorite DC pubs and for the most part the conversation was entirely about sports and politics.
I always ask a lot of questions and after a few rounds I was probably asking too many. Five of the guys were in the military; all had been to Iraq, two of them twice including my friend. As we all pondered the invasion and the good deed of democracy, we all agreed that nothing had gone as planned and that many things are still not fully under control. Not to mention that all of us supported the invasion and overthrow of Saddam.
Somewhere along the way I asked if it were possible to support the troops without supporting the president. Three of the soldiers said no entirely impossible. Two of the soldiers said yes absolutely possible and in fact they don’t support the president. Soon the debate swarmed across the entire pub and frankly the pub was just as divided as the soldiers. Of course I think it’s exceedingly possible to support the troops but not the president and I like to think that I do just that. It’s apparent others would disagree.
When I asked those same three soldiers if they supported Clinton while he was in office they began to grin and eventually said “no way.” To my surprise the two who were agreeing with me about not supporting Bush, also said that they did not support Clinton either.
Judging from the soldier’s replies as to why they supported Bush none of them said it was because they were Republican or really for political matters. They said it was because Bush understood the military and more so his administration understood the military. And since the president is the commander in chief, then he is part of the military and not supporting him is not supporting them, which I might add totally defies my Clinton argument.
I like to think that the neocons and most Republicans for that matter do agree that not supporting the prez is not supporting the men and women in uniform. The entire 2004 George Bush campaign was based on just that. And Kerry frantically tried to emulate the support by endlessly talking about his service in Vietnam and Bush’s MIA status in the Alabama Air National Guard. By presenting a message that Bush is the commander in chief, actually a “war president” is more precise, then without a doubt the message becomes supporting Bush is supporting the military.
What shocked me more was the fact that two of the five agreed with me and did not support their commander in chief. Maybe this explains the reason why six Iraq veterans have pulled Democratic tickets for ’06. Not to mention that this war on terrorism is being fought with Clinton’s military.
Tags:
Ajax, politics, Iraq, military
10.18.2005
Supporting the Troops But Not the President?
Posted by Chris at 12:01 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
There does seem to be lagre divide; I can support the troops and not the president in my mind but honestly war president or not he is doing a piss poor job as a war president; a real war president would have send enough troops to do the job - he obviously did not even know what the job would really entail.
I know very few soldiers myself but from what I have seen on the news etc they do appear divided.
If I were a soldier I would find it hard not to support the president while I was in Iraq. I have heard both situations though and know there are a lot of them that do not support him due to the non-planning and subsequent mess.
Nice to have you Back around MJ.
I am a registered republican and a military spouse, I've never voted for him nor do I support him. He has thrown more money at the military than Clinton did which is why my husband has a hard time with him, but many of his judgement calls are poor.
I am damn proud of my husband and his choice to be in the military. I am proud of the work that the service members are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. I support the soldier, their families and my husband's choice for a career.
What bothers me about the President and I said this before 9/11 is that something about him, just bugs me. There is just something about him that screams "weasel." I don't know why but my gut says he is a weasel. I don't trust him nor a majority of his decisions - there is some kind of weasely motive behind them, that's why I don't support him.
HH6
The President's judgement calls not my husband's!
It's not Clinton's military anymore...Clinton's military was the one where everyone just had Vietnam-era flak vests, and units had to hope they had enough money to order vests, otherwise the soldiers had to buy their own. Now all soldiers are issued with vests. (Well, to be honest here I would have to say, it's not necessary to constantly have the military prepared on all levels, since it's a waste of money if there is no war. They should just be able to get the equiptment relatively fast when they DO need it. I mean, if they have kept getting new vests since Vietnam, they would have gone thru a dozen different styles, and just wasted loads of money outfitting millions and millions of soldiers who were never going to see any action.)
It certainly was Clinton's military when the WOT started, but gees, we are like almost 5 years into Bush's presidency, when does it become Bush's military?
Graham, I harbor no ill will towards Clinton - his time in office like CVG said really cut funds and put a severe strain on the military & the military family.
Bush on the other hand is putting more money into the military, housing, equipment etc, but the trade off is that I see our national debt rising where with Clinton it was falling.
Clinton is one of best orators I have ever heard. His charisma and charismatic leadership style helped to motivate others and "win over" in various situations. He is one of those people that could convince a 95 pound woman that she could lift a car off of her child and coach her through it.
I liked Clinton in case you couldn’t tell although he wasn't without faults either. He lied about his relationship with the intern and eventhough what he does behind closed doors with an intern doesn't bother me, he got into a lot of hot water with the public for not just fessing up to it.
My bro-in-law was in the Iraq War and now that he's home he is a Green. Seem to be a lot of that happing after these guys come home.
By the way, I VERY MUCH support the troops but not the Prez.
James,
I think that to a certain extent the military is a slice of our society. When entering the military, most soldiers are young, and their experiences are still forming them.
I think an experience like a deployment just enforces people's opinions more. If they didn't really know where they stood before, they do afterwards. It tends to bring things into perspective, and you realize what is important in your life.
However, no matter how much a soldier stands behind these wars, the deployments are taking a toll. It's one thing to ask a soldier to serve his country. It's a totally different to have the same guys going back and forth to Iraq and Afghanistan and Co. Those guys are carrying way more than their "fair share".
I am amazed everytime I read about every re-enlistment nowadays. It's mind-boggling to me that guys in their 2nd deployment to Iraq, decide, "hmmm yeah, I'll re-up for another 4 years." It's just a mindset I can't quite gasp. I am in total awe and have nothing but respect for them.
"They said it was because Bush understood the military and more so his administration understood the military."
Sorry, don't see how they could hold this opinion. How does Bush understand the military?From his brave service in the National Guard, LOL. Or Dick Cheney's service in... oh, nowhere.
It's not hard for me to support our troops but not the President. The men and women in the military are doing all they can to protect our country and it's Constitution. It's been a while since we had a President that did that.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
CA Valley Girl stole my thunder. This isn't 'Clinton's military' anymore. Many, many people retired from the service because of their disdain for Clinton. And many, many have enlisted because of 9/11 and because of Bush himself.
The President is extremely popular within the military, both the brass and the rank and file, because he's raised their pay, he allows them to do their jobs and he has respect for those who serve.
Regarding MJ's post:
(1.) I never talk about politics when I drink, but I'll make an exception for you, MJ. Just let me know when you're going to be in San Diego and we'll meet at the Irish Pub.
(2.) It amuses me when people claim they can 'support the troops, but not the President.' Disagreeing with the foreign policy of the United States means that you also disagree with whatever the military happens to be doing as a result of that foreign policy. Futile attempts to separate the two are ridiculous, intellectually dishonest and illustrative of the absurdity of the Democrats' position on just about everything.
when i first came home, i would have said it is not possible to support the troops and not the president. now, however, i believe it is possible. but there is a fine line. i guess you have to ask yourself what is supporting the troops. i had one lady who said she totally supported the troops and not the president, but she also contended that we have committed several war crimes. is this true support? i think it's popular to support the troops; our country does not want to revert to the days of vietnam. however, anybody who claims support must show this through deeds, not words. maybe it's a care package or volunteering for the USO in the local airport, but simply placing a bumper sticker on your car is not showing support... it's no different than buying the most popular clothes. one politician whom i think has showed he can support the troops and not the president, or even the war is Sen. Russ Feingold http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/05/09/2005928.html
Feingold has attended every Wisconsin soldier's funeral and has been present for almost all going away and coming home parties for soldiers of the wisconsin Guard. of course, it would be easy to say he's just doing it to be popular. but when i looked in his eyes when he said welcome home, it was true appreciation, not a political message for the cameras.
Support the troops, but realise they will be sold down the river in the blink of eye. Whose heads hung over Abu Ghraib?
and
Young, White, Football Star, Dead...
That'll come in handy...
Pat Tillman, Our Hero
Dave Zirin
"I don't believe it," seethed Ann Coulter.
Her contempt was directed at a September 25 San Francisco Chronicle story reporting that former NFL star and Army Ranger war hero Pat Tillman, who was killed in Afghanistan last year, believed the US war on Iraq was "f***ing illegal" and counted Noam Chomsky among his favorite authors. It must have been quite a moment for Coulter, who upon Tillman's death described him in her inimitably creepy fashion as "an American original--virtuous, pure and masculine like only an American male can be." She tried to discredit the story as San Francisco agitprop, but this approach ran into a slight problem: The article's source was Pat Tillman's mother, Mary.
Mary and the Tillman family are relentlessly pushing for answers to the questions surrounding Pat's death in Afghanistan. They want to know why it took the Pentagon five weeks to tell them he died in a tragic case of friendly fire. They want to know why they were unwitting props at Pat's funeral, weeping while lies were told by eulogizing politicians. Mary is now hoping that a new Pentagon inquiry will bring closure. "There have been so many discrepancies so far that it's hard to know what to believe," she said to the Chronicle. "There are too many murky details."
continued... The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051024/zirin
dav, my friend, you bring up a great point. there are so many cover ups within our government that it makes me want to puke. if we didn't have watch dawgs, journalists, there would be even more.
Kent - I stand in awe at how ridiculous your comments are for several reasons, but allow me to briefly recap the highlights.
1. You mention many many people retired from the military because of their disdain for Clinton. Are you aware the recruiting numbers are at nearly record lows after one of the most unifying events our nation has ever experienced only a few years before?
Can you also tell me about how many US soldiers died or were maimed during Clinton's war in Kosovo? Can you tell me how many have died in Iraq? Can you tell me why we're in Iraq now, what our plans to leave are, and what two major circumstances contributed to us being there in the first place, and whether or not those circumstances proved to be true?
2. Saying you can't support the troops while simultaneously disagreeing with the president is one of the most asinine, juvenile, and frankly unpatriotic stances one can make.
What a lucky government we have with opinions like yours out there to support their bullshit.
Since the 50's, the conservatives have used submission and the fear of being viewed as unpatriotic to support their causes - whether it was protests during Vietnam, McCarthism and other completely ridiculous Commie finger pointing, and you're seeing more examples since 9/11.
I have several friends in Iraq - do I not support them because I think Bush should be in prison? I had two Uncles in Vietnam, and we all know what a wonderful cause that was - do I not support my family members who have served because I disagreed with the President?
What would you say to veterans marching in anti-war protests, or veterans casting votes against Bush - who himself never really served?
I'd like you to visit a web site if you ever read the comment I'm writing - click here and tell me if these people are unpatriotic.
Your opinions are sickening, bro.
Post a Comment