BCT Editorial – 9/20/06

This page was last updated on September 20, 2006.

Troop support; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 20, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“In the midst of the recriminations over the occupation of Iraq, let’s focus on one positive aspect of the entire mess: the unconditional support the American people are giving to the men and women in the U.S. military.

“In stark contrast to the equally divisive Vietnam War, Americans are supporting the troops. They are doing that by differentiating between the men and women who are fighting - and being killed, wounded and maimed - in Iraq and Afghanistan and the policy makers, most of whom are chicken hawks from the Vietnam era, who put them there.

“In contrast to Vietnam, the troops aren’t being heckled, made to feel uncomfortable or met with indifference. They aren’t being called baby killers or being spit on. They aren’t being shunned or ridiculed simply because they are wearing a uniform. They aren’t being made scapegoats for decisions that have been made by higher-ups.

“Joseph L. Galloway noted this separation in a recent column. ‘The results of these attempts (by Bush administration officials) to deceive and manipulate the public are sadly predictable,’ he wrote. ‘The American people are turning against the war in Iraq, though thankfully not, this time, against the troops who’ve been sent to fight it.’

“Galloway knows of what he wrote. He served four tours in Vietnam as a reporter. He’s seen combat. He’s seen death and destruction. He’s seen the horrible price the troops pay for having incompetent, uncaring, deceitful leaders. We’re not certain the men and women in today’s military understand or appreciate the difference between then and now, but we’re fairly sure a lot of Vietnam-era veterans do.

“Contrary to those who contend that any criticism of policy makers is tantamount to not supporting the troops, sometimes the best way to support the troops is to make sure that inconvenient truth is not the first casualty of war.”

[RWC] This could have been a nice editorial showing how people can distinguish between policy they may disagree with and those who volunteer to defend this country, but Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) wouldn’t allow it. Instead, the editorial wallows in a pigpen of name-calling and drive-by accusations.

The central premise of the editorial isn’t even completely true.

When in 2005 Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) said compared our military to “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others,” did that sound like “unconditional support” for the troops?

When in 2004 Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) said, “Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management,” did that sound like “unconditional support” for the troops?

Protesters (Code Pink and friends) outside Walter Reed Army Hospital demean the efforts of the wounded soldiers inside, but you won’t find the Times reporting it because it doesn’t fit the storyline. These are the same people sending “get well” cards to the wounded saying, “Have a great time in the war and have a great time dying in the war.” I saw this on FNC last year and almost couldn’t believe it.

When people falsely claim the military personnel serving on active duty are serving only because they can’t get a job anywhere else, does that sound like “unconditional support” for the troops?