[Ferox]

The liberals have now admitted, according to the Cambridge law maker on O’Reilly, that supporting the troops means supporting the war. For years now, the libs have been saying that the two are not the same, but the lie has now been exposed. The dems are not for the troops, and this measure by Reid only goes to prove it.

[AmericanExceptionalist]

The liberals have now admitted, according to the Cambridge law maker on O’Reilly, that supporting the troops means supporting the war. For years now, the libs have been saying that the two are not the same, but the lie has now been exposed. The dems are not for the troops, and this measure by Reid only goes to prove it.

That is a very good observation. It is all too convenient to claim that one supports the troops, while opposing whatever it is that they do. Convenient, yes, but also disingenuous. As you indicate, this helps to expose the claim for the lie that it is.

As for the Democrats' sulking vote to deny funding for the troops, it may turn out to be a blessing in disguise. For it tends to make plain (to any centrist and independent observers who take notice of such things) that the Democrats are not just anti-war, or even pathologically anti-Bush. They are also anti-military.

And this is an attitude that does not please many people anywhere to the right of, oh, the folks at MoveOn.org. Or perhaps the Daily Kos.