The Republican Party hates our troops
Publius of Legal Fiction on Republicans closing ranks behind Iraq policy as an election gambit:
Whatever your view on Iraq may be, I think there’s a pretty broad consensus that what we’re doing isn’t working (excluding Lieberman’s cell phone penetration study). And so, at the very least, everyone can agree that we need some real changes and we need them fast. After all, this isn’t some trifling issue. A lot of people are getting killed and maimed as a result of a failing policy. And every day we continue with this policy unchanged is another day that someone dies who shouldn’t have died. We ask a lot of the troops, surely we can do them the damn courtesy of demanding that failing policies be changed.
But no, that’s too much for our brave strong-on-security majority party. For the benefit of an election, they’ve decided to close ranks behind Bush’s Iraq policy.
It’s not just that they’re abdicating their responsibility to our soldiers by refusing to demand change, they’re now actually engaged in full-throated cheerleading. And what makes this newfound enthusiasm particularly grotesque is that they now know that Bush’s policy is (and has been) a failure. But they cheer him on anyway, acknowledging nothing and ignoring reality regardless of the human costs.
...
We need to be very clear on what exactly this great new strategy is. It is a conscious decision that human life means less than political power. It is a decision that extra dead Americans are worth less than jeopardizing an election by admitting a mistake. And what’s especially infuriating (and unforgiveable) is that the GOP officials know that the current policy isn’t working, but refuse to demand change regardless of the human costs. To use soldiers' lives as political pawns in this way is the height of immorality.
"But if they don't support the war they might lose elections!" They might. But in my mind, doing the right thing and protecting American soldiers with better Iraq policy (and almost anything would be better than Bush's policy of "do exactly what we've been doing even though it doesn't work") is more important than winning elections. The fact that the vast majority of Republican politicians in Washington think that real soldiers really dying are less important than their party winning elections should outrage you. I know I'm outraged.
Whatever your view on Iraq may be, I think there’s a pretty broad consensus that what we’re doing isn’t working (excluding Lieberman’s cell phone penetration study). And so, at the very least, everyone can agree that we need some real changes and we need them fast. After all, this isn’t some trifling issue. A lot of people are getting killed and maimed as a result of a failing policy. And every day we continue with this policy unchanged is another day that someone dies who shouldn’t have died. We ask a lot of the troops, surely we can do them the damn courtesy of demanding that failing policies be changed.
But no, that’s too much for our brave strong-on-security majority party. For the benefit of an election, they’ve decided to close ranks behind Bush’s Iraq policy.
It’s not just that they’re abdicating their responsibility to our soldiers by refusing to demand change, they’re now actually engaged in full-throated cheerleading. And what makes this newfound enthusiasm particularly grotesque is that they now know that Bush’s policy is (and has been) a failure. But they cheer him on anyway, acknowledging nothing and ignoring reality regardless of the human costs.
...
We need to be very clear on what exactly this great new strategy is. It is a conscious decision that human life means less than political power. It is a decision that extra dead Americans are worth less than jeopardizing an election by admitting a mistake. And what’s especially infuriating (and unforgiveable) is that the GOP officials know that the current policy isn’t working, but refuse to demand change regardless of the human costs. To use soldiers' lives as political pawns in this way is the height of immorality.
"But if they don't support the war they might lose elections!" They might. But in my mind, doing the right thing and protecting American soldiers with better Iraq policy (and almost anything would be better than Bush's policy of "do exactly what we've been doing even though it doesn't work") is more important than winning elections. The fact that the vast majority of Republican politicians in Washington think that real soldiers really dying are less important than their party winning elections should outrage you. I know I'm outraged.