Support Our Troops? Not Hillary!

NewsMax ^ | Monday, April 7, 12:02 a.m. EDT | Carl Limbacher

[cardinal4]

Wow! Three anti-Hillary threads! Im glad Im off today, but not before posting an obligatory hillary pic......

[familyofman]

"The democrats' "support for the troops" is immediately seen by the troops as disingenuous and false when coupled with such obvious lack of support for their Commander in Chief."
Question - did you, and all conservatives & Repubs, support both the troops and WJC as CIC? This line of questioning how one can support the troops, but hold the CIC in disdain rings hollow if you did not support WJC as CIC.
Just trying to add a little logic to the discussion - I think having a different level of support for thr CIC and those that report to him is perfectly logical. I know I didn't support WJC as CIC, but I supported the troops and military.

[wayoverontheright]

Question - did you, and all conservatives & Repubs, support both the troops and WJC as CIC?

I personally was very critical of what I felt were the motivations behind some of the "interventions" during Clinton's tenure, but once our men and women were in harm's way, I with great difficulty expressed support, and I think that's largely true of the conservative side's behavior at that time.

It takes effort to term any of the conflicts during Clinton's time as "war", as none of them fit the normal description, from my point of view.

After Mogadishu, where it has become apparent that our troops were endangered by a lack of resolve on the part of their CIC due to political considerations, the modus operandi became; A-Bomb from afar and B-Cut and run if fired upon. This pretty much protected our men from any danger due to morale deficiency, lack of faith in the mission, or diminished resolve.

Things were much more delicate for ground troops in Iraq, as they were close-in engaged, and the resolve of each soldier can become life or death, a material difference that remains to this day.

[familyofman]

"I personally was very critical of what I felt were the motivations behind some of the "interventions" during Clinton's tenure, but once our men and women were in harm's way, I with great difficulty expressed support, and I think that's largely true of the conservative side's behavior at that time."
So you're saying you supported the troops, but not the CIC? If I misconstrued your meaning please let me know. I know that's how I felt & don't find it incongruant with what is being said today by the libs. It is a very difficult thing to do - finding that I felt like they do now.

[wayoverontheright]

I don't think you are wrong at all, for me there was a demarcation line between being vocal before bullets started flying, and after. After they started flying I shut up. After the men are in harm's way, saying nothing at all IS an option the Dixie Chicks et. al., should have chosen in my view. Even if you spoke up after engagement during the Clinton years, I don't think our men were placed in any more danger by virtue of our "bomb from afar, cut and run if fired upon" modus operandi, after Mogadishu.

I guess my point was, the soldiers on the ground would see the disinginuousness of those who fought Bush tooth and nail over the war, suddenly saying "I support the troops", and even when asked, could not bring themselves to say, "and their commander in chief". If confronted I definitely would have faked it. How hard could that be for a democrat?

[timestax]

ping

[timestax]

ping

[timestax]

ping

[timestax]

ping

[timestax]

p i n g

[timestax]

ping

[timestax]

ping

[timestax]

Hitlery needs a KrispyKreme glazed doughnut,