rashomon politics:

the "great" debate

what does "support troops" really mean?

one side says it to keep the war going, one side says it to stop the war.

both know they must appeal to public sentiment.

so it's hogwash either way: a rhetorical device used by both sides to stir your feelings to get you to agree with whichever one you happen to be listening to.

you need some other basis for making up your mind.

how about this one: "you can't support the warrior and oppose the mission"?

really? why not? do troops choose their missions? or do they carry out what they're ordered to do? and what if the head of the chain of command has chosen badly?

interestingly, some gops in congress have been accusing the dems—who oppose a troop buildup—of now advocating we stay the course!

i guess how you see it just depends on where you stand.