The 2006 crop of Democratic warrior-candidates might not have won in the numbers many of us had hoped for, but it doesn't seem implausible to think that they might have moved the needle on public perceptions of which side "supports the troops." To their credit, the Dems have kept some focus on this (and the Walter Reed debacle--perhaps the clearest indication of the Bush/Rove/DeLay style of governance--probably contributed as well).

But they need to keep pushing this advantage. Were the Democrats to get to something like parity in the military-and-families vote, it's hard to see how they wouldn't be a majority party for as long as they could hold it.

"Supports the troops" = "is militaristic"

"Supports the troops" = "thinks military solutions are best"

The results probably mean that the actual number is about 80%, because there are likely around 10% of respondents who disapprove of Bush's disastrous policy, but are such loyal Republicans that they will not tell pollsters that.

The remaining 20% listen to Rush Limbaugh and have only a tangential grip on reality.

You are correct.
Thanks.

Good to see that 70% of us are now a bunch of dirty f*cking liberal hippies now. :-)

"Support the Troops" is only an effective argument against imbeciles who lack the basic knowledge of logic required to refute it.

The phrase itself is so vague that it's utterly meaningless.

When Bush uses the phrase, he seems to be suggesting that the troops are fighting the war in Iraq because they want to, and the whole thing is primarily for their benefit. Which is ludicrous.

Anyone who can't refute that moronic talking point inside five seconds has no business representing Americans in Washington.

My thought was that Americans were simply brainwashed as a reult of W's constant repetition of the charge that overt opposition to his way was, not supprting the troops. Greg's explanation makes more sense. No coach would not support his players, but there are fans who would loose heart when the going gets tough.

Remember when the obigatory phrase was, "God bless America."?

That pregame prayer is less resonant today

"Supports the troops" also can mean "military solutions are a last resort, but, when chosen, there are obligations to those in harm's way."

They deserve the best chance of healthy survival in a very dangerous context. That means getting everything from protective gear to long-ranged weapons to good medical support. That means keeping faith with them that their wounds and death serve some meaningful purpose.

I am engaged in a rather bitter argument with an acquaintance, who served three tours in Iraq as a senior NCO, and insists the troops must be "allowed to finish the job," although he never is specific about the job. He did not like it when he dismissed my arguments because I had not seen combat, and I agreed that Dwight Eisenhower and Hap Arnold, who had never been in combat, indeed were not entitled to opinions. He did not like pointing out that what he saw firsthand in Ramadi or Falluja does not give him an overview of the situation in Iraq, much less in the worldwide "War against Terror." He, and some other soldiers -- but not others -- are insistent that every al-Qaeda member fought in Iraq is one that need not be fought in Delaware, refusing to consider historical perspectives on recruiting insurgents in many wars.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Wingnut: "I support the troops."

JohnW: "How?"

Wingnut: "um, eh....er...I support them, that's how."

I appreciate your personable post and what is your call, I believe, for us to employ strategy in dealing with the issue of Bush's "perception management," which has been so successful that most poll responders think Bush "supports the troops."

Let me tell you: The emptiest, most vacant file that I have ever seen in my life is the list of troops supported by the Bush administration. However, the file with the list of troops harmed by the Bush administration comes in trucks, groaning under the weight of the data.

There is no name and no address of any trooper who has been supported by the Bush administration, and don't tell me that could be x-Brigadier General Geoffrey Miller, former commander of the detention facility at Guantanamo and the guy behind the Abu Grab & Grope scandal. He can't be a trooper, for our troops are professional, and no professional trooper commits torture. From x-General Colin Powell to a relative of a recent TPM poster, who had to get basic tools sent by the family because our troops in Iraq can't even get that, there is no trooper supported by the Bush administration.

I have no evidence whatsoever that a single trooper has ever been supported by Bush. None. In fact, Bush has shown everybody that he supports the troops-being-used-as-political-pawns. (My files on this trooper are HUGE.) But I haven't seen the poll on this yet.

And I really like your idea of us redirecting the aggression. I like that. Because I know that the only way we can get to roast, toast & ghost al-Qaeda and the fanatics is to redirect the aggression towards impeaching Bush and the Torture Party. After all, they're the guys who let bin Laden get away in the first place. And they'll be the first to subject our troops to their political purposes, no matter how tragic. We have seen them do this already.

So, yeah, your overall call for us to use strategy, in dealing with this, is a sensible call, I think, because the Democrats in DC want to protect our troops, and protecting our troops from Bush and his Torture Party is top priority. You betcha. Protecting our troops has never been a Torture Party priority. I can tell. And catching al-Qaeda? Where's Osama bin Laden? New York Times writer Frank Rich tells us WOT happened here.