The idea that if we don't support the mission we don't support the troops, is driving me nuts.
I'm starting to rethink the idea of cutting off funding - i know how it will be portrayed, but there was a post at Salon yesterday that led me to consider how such a funding cut would actually be implemented. Glen Greenwald's new blog over there.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ Republicans and the media have propagated -- and Democrats have frequently affirmed -- the proposition that to de-fund a war is to endanger the "troops in the field."
This unbelievably irrational, even stupid, concept has arisen and has now taken root -- that to cut off funds for the war means that, one day, our troops are going to be in the middle of a vicious fire-fight and suddenly they will run out of bullets -- or run out of gas or armor -- because Nancy Pelosi refused to pay for the things they need to protect themselves, and so they are going to find themselves in the middle of the Iraq war with no supplies and no money to pay for what they need. That is just one of those grossly distorting, idiotic myths the media allows to become immovably lodged in our political discourse and which infects our political analysis and prevents any sort of rational examination of our options. Anyway something to think about
Bryant
Check it out -->
http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com