Do you really think a key difference between the major parties centers around the use of a catch-phrase like "support the troops"?

Certainly, we can play the talking point game from the other side as well. Is it "supporting the troops" to send them into a warzone with an ill-defined mission? Then when they get home, deny their medical claims and send them back for a third (involultary) tour? It's amazing how Orwellian the GOP is in their "support" for the troops.

Matt, could you please define what "victory" is for the GOP and how do you plan to obtain such "victory"?

Good point about the Democrats having to say they support the troops. They keep coming out and telling us the support the troops, if they really did they wouldn't have to keep telling us.

Wow! Congratulations, Matt! According to Brian, posting above, it looks as though you have been put in command of our troops over in Iraq, as he seems to think you know what victory is and how it's going to be obtained!

The plan is to win. However with members of congress traveling to meet with foreign governments who are avowed enemies of the United States, it may be hard.
On the Support of the Troops, my home town is a railroad town, therefore union, therefore Democratic. Of the 261 of us in the Class of 1972, 4 entered the Armed Forces. I was the only one who made it a career. A large number of my classmates did give me the what for.

I started questioning their patriotism a long time ago. About the time they said I was questioning their patriotism.

Not a single person here, nor the President, nor the GOP has defined what a victory would consist of. "Victory" or "to win" cannot be achieved when no ones knows what is the goal.

Simple saying that you support the troops, having a sticker on your car is not supporting the troops. Nor is sending the troops to war without the armor or training necessary. Though, the GOP and the President had no problem doing that for years.

At least I sent several care packages to the troops, which is probably more than many of the armchair Republicans I know.

Well first off you can't tell someone you support them but object to what they are doing, that makes no sense at all.

Especially for those who joined the military, knowing they would be deployed to Iraq and did so based on their own personal convictions.

It's impossible to be anti-war and actually support the deplyment of troops into a military conflict.

So kill the BS... either you support them or you don't

If you simply oppose war, then be onest about it.

If you think Bush screwed up on this war, fine crticize him.

But to clim you support the troops is a lie, you only use the term to diguise your postion.

Brian: Sorry, bud. It's been proven Conservatives give more to charity than Liberals. I've been sending letters and care packages to our troops since the start of the war. Nice try, though.

Dems started including the phrase, "We support the troops" about a year ago, after Republicans started asking if they did. It's all for show.

Thanks for your service, Glenn. We appreciate you.

The Second difference is that Republicans actually support our troops.

Yeah you do alright.........by slashing veteran's benefits, not arming our troops with body armor, and treating our wounded veterans like second-class citizens(Walter Reed building 18, ring any bells?).

Hey Matt, try practicing what you preach sometime.

Democraps have alligience only to them selves.When I returned to this country from Nam,one of those I support the troop types ended up on his back,down for the count after he spit at me and four other Marines.They had us out numbered at least 5 to 1,but we had them surronded.A coward is as a coward does.This is the same crowd just in camoflage.

Kim, It has not been proven that Conservatives give more. Doing a Google search I found one person wrote a book and several conservative websites echo what this person has said. I found several other websites that point to errors in his research. Anyway, I was talking about myself. I give way above average to charities and have been sending care packages to the troops, as well.

Doug, You can disagree with someone and still support them. And it may come as a shock to you, but I do not want to see any harm come to our troops, nor does any other American.

There has been no clearly defined mission and no one here has mentioned what the mission currently is in Iraq. Again, "to win" and "victory" are endpoints and there is no plan to achieve this victory. If there is no clear plan, then it is time to bring the troops home.

Brian is either willfully ignorant or obtuse or lying, because I found President Bush's definition of victory in Iraq in less than two minutes using Google. Here it is, so that Brian and his fellow Bush-haters can no longer pretend it doesn't exist: "-- President George W. Bush June 28, 2003 VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED As the central front in the global war on terror, success in Iraq is an essential element in the long war against the ideology that breeds international terrorism. Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in the form of an enemy's surrender, or be signaled by a single particular event -- there will be no Battleship Missouri, no Appomattox. The ultimate victory will be achieved in stages, and we expect: In the short term: An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy. In the medium term: An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential. In the longer term: An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency. An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country. An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region." As opposed to Brian's wish, which is to bolt and leave Iraqis to be slaughtered at the hands of the Islamofascists. Because for Brian and his fellow travelers, even Iraqis are fodder in the cause of defeating George W. Bush. You don't support the troops, Brian. You don't support anything decent. You only support an ideology that hates America and hopes for its comeuppance at the hands of the enemy.

The smell of troll poo is strong here too, Mark!

YFS, the Bush team has FAILED at just about everything Bush has mentioned in his speech. How long should we wait?

As for the Islamofascists you speak about, the people of Iraq are killing each other. Even the Prime Minister of Iraq said that the American Troops being present are a problem.

And how dare your question my patriotism! We can debate about issues, but to call someone names is pathetic.

Why not read about the national socialist party of 1930s Germany. If you did not agree with them, then you were a traitor. No YFS, I am not a traitor but a true patriot.

Has anyone REALLY thought Democrats supported our troops? I mean, c'mon!! These are the same Boomers that called our boys come home from the Nam "baby killers."

To be a Democrat is an un-American act in itself. To be a Democrat is to take the point of view that America is innately evil and that our enemies are innocent victims. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you our Socialist House Speaker Pelosi as a case in point.

To be a Democrat is to disdain the very capitalistic system that has made this country great. Ladies and gentlemen I give you George Soros, a man made wealthy by the very system he now maligns.

To be a Democrat is to hate Christians, yet make a religion out of some sort of apocolyptic idea that the earth is warming and we're all gonna die. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the mentally retarded Al Gore.

I could go on and on, but you get the point...

To be a Democrat is an un-American act in itself.
_________________________________________________

Hey asshole, my father, who just so happens to be a Democrat, stuck his neck out for this nation during Desert Storm. Does that make him un-American because of his party affiliation?

"my father, who just so happens to be a Democrat, stuck his neck out for this nation during Desert Storm. Does that make him un-American because of his party affiliation?"

Yes.

That's great that your father served, but what's he doing being in the socialist party? I'm sure he wasn't serving out of some sense of belief in strong national defense, because the Republican OWN that.

So why exactly WAS he serving? It would have to be something along the lines of "hey, it's government work. Easy paycheck." - And NOT any sense of patriotism or belief in America's need to defend itself against tyranny.

Mr Bret Helm, I get your point and I'm indeed glad you chose not to go on and on. I suppose it's safe to assume that you feel the USA would be a better place to live if we had a one party government?

Mr Ron W,

I never said anything about a one party government. I'm talking about not being affiliated with a party actively complicit with the nation's sworn enemies during the Global War on Terror.

Mr YFS, thanks for your definition of "victory". Realistically, one should add to it that upon victory in Iraq, everyday will be a holiday, Sunday will come twice a week and there will be a Walgreens on every corner. We can never stop terrorists or neutralize the insurgency. Accordingly, we can not acquire victory. Why? Because they cannot destroy us yet will not stop fighting until the Sunnis are gone. We are not going to allow that. The civil war is in its early stages and it is going to happen. If we leave, the Iraqi civil war would only last a few years. If we don't, it will simply go on forever OR for a few years AFTER we leave. Now, let's clear up this gibberish about it spreading. It will not as it will be contained in Iraq. Why? Turkey has the best army in the region, and Iran has the largest. Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and even Qatar all have stable governments, most of which have extreme control over their citizens. They can all defend their borders. Further, the goal of the insurgents is to kill Americans, not invade their neighbors. The only thing that Iraqis hate more than the insurgents are Americans. The only reason they are tolerated is because of our presence. We go, they go. Otherwise they'll be promptly rejected and can likely only go to Somalia, which is pretty much in anarchy right now. Now, about this utter nonsense about "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here". This is no more than sheer fear mongering. They have no army, no navy, and no air force. Bush, prior to the Nov 7 elections conceded that AQ and 9/11 had "nothing" to do Iraq. The 9/11 attacks were planned in some distant Afghanistan cave and will very likely be their biggest achievement ever. They cannot massively board a transatlantic flight to the USA and attack us. It isn't even their interest to transform us into Islamofascists. They simply want to kill us and we're depleting our resources and giving them opportunity while having a "welcome" mat for terrorist at the Mexican boarders. Finally, this isn't a partisan issue unless you're simply so infatuated with the Bush Admin that you allow yourself to defy logic.

So why exactly WAS he serving? It would have to be something along the lines of "hey, it's government work. Easy paycheck." - And NOT any sense of patriotism or belief in America's need to defend itself against tyranny.

Alright buddy.
Since you have the stones to spit on my dad's services to this nation, when and where did you serve, motherf***er?
Better yet, you f**king coward, why the f**k aren't you enlisting in Bush's 'glorious war' in Iraq?
And don't give me that you're too old bulls**t excuse, a**hole. The military is now looking for people over 40, people who are injured, even people with mental disabilities are welcome now.
What's you're f***ing excuse, chickens**t?

I AM a PROUD veteran, you MORON. Your wanna-easy-gov't-job daddy needs to clean out your filthy mouth, but then again Democrats don't discipline their children either, do they?