Republican Newspeak and “Supporting” The Troops

How much evidence is needed to show that the Bush administration does not “support the troops” but instead is shamelessly talking advantage of them? AP reports on how they are being denied educational benefits which they anticipated for their service in Iraq. (Hat tip to Steve Benen).

Nearly half the members of one of the longest serving U.S. military units in Iraq are not eligible for a more generous military educational benefit, with some falling one day short of eligibility. . . All 2,600 of the soldiers, who returned this year from Iraq, are eligible for money for school under the GI Bill. But nearly half discovered they weren’t eligible for a more generous package of benefits available to other soldiers. . .

Under the GI Bill, two categories of educational benefits are available to Guard soldiers: one for those who have served less than two years and another for those who have put in more time. Among other things, the latter benefit provides as much as $800 per month for full-time training while the former provides $282.

In order to be eligible for the higher category of benefits it is necessary to  server for 730 days in Iraq. They were brought home after 729 days. Needless to say, many agree with Juan Cole that they were deliberately brought home one day earlier to avoid providing the benefits.

I guess we will have to consider the word “support” as in “support the troops” as another word where it means something different from how we previously used the word. We already know that under Republican newspeak “patriotism” means “blind support for authority”, “capitalism” means “using government to transfer more wealth to the wealthy and big corporations” “science” means “a set of information which we can ignore whenever politically inconvenient” and “freedom” means “living your life as we believe you should.” In this case, whenever listening to Republicans and you hear “support” simply substitute “screw” and you will know what they really mean.

Be Sociable, Share!

8 Comments

  1. 1
    ThatGayConservative says:

    It’s interesting to note how you willfully left out the part that details how the Army is already looking at the issue and that a Republican introduced legislation to remedy the problem.

    Besides, as far as liberals are concerned, they’re too damn stupid to learn anything, so why are making a fuss?

    BTW, patriotism means “devoted love, support, and defense of one’s country; national loyalty” not trashing your country in the hopes your statements get picked up on al-Jazeera.

    And how does calling our soldiers terrorists, Nazis, Soviets, stupid, cold-blooded murderers, liar, incompetent etc. especially by those who never served???

  2. 2
    ThatGayConservative says:

    Should have read:

    And how does calling our soldiers terrorists, Nazis, Soviets, stupid, cold-blooded murderers, liar, incompetent etc. especially by those who never served show support???

  3. 3
    Ron Chusid says:

    “It’s interesting to note how you willfully left out the part that details how the Army is already looking at the issue…”

    I did not willfully leave out anything. That’s why links are included to articles. The important point here is the manner in which the government attempted to screw them until this got caught. Your rationalizations do not change this fact.

    “And how does calling our soldiers terrorists, Nazis, Soviets, stupid, cold-blooded murderers, liar, incompetent etc. especially by those who never served show support???”

    While I’m sure you could find some isolated kooks on the left who have made such statements, you are misrepresenting the views of most Democrats to promote the false meme that Republicans support the troops and the Democrats do not. In reality it has been the Republicans who have repeatedly screwed them while Democrats have been the ones calling for increased assistance.

    You clearly demonstrate that you are no patriot but that you oppose the values upon which this nation was founded when you describe disagreement with a disastrous policy such as the Iraq war as “trashing your country in the hopes your statements get picked up on al-Jazeera.”

  4. 4
    ThatGayConservative says:

    The important point here is the manner in which the government attempted to screw them until this got caught. Your rationalizations do not change this fact.

    What “fact”? You’ve got speculation at best.

    While I’m sure you could find some isolated kooks on the left who have made such statements, you are misrepresenting the views of most Democrats to promote the false meme that Republicans support the troops and the Democrats do not.

    Some kooks? How about the democrat leadership? I’m talking about Reid, Kerry, Murtha, Durbin etc. I’m trying to figure out how those examples above show support. How does demanding the surrender of the U.S. show support? How does trying to abscond with the powers of CIC show support?

  5. 5
    Ron Chusid says:

    You sure have bought into all the far right talking points, regardless of how incorrect they are.

    “What “fact”? You’ve got speculation at best.”

    Check the article for the facts. You even said that “Republican introduced legislation to remedy the problem.” You can’t have it both ways, first saying the Republicans are going to solve the problem and then denying the problem.

    “Some kooks? How about the democrat leadership?”

    I’m referring to what people have really said, not all fabricated “quotations” that conservative bloggers spread around without regard for what was really said.

    “How does demanding the surrender of the U.S. show support?”

    Nobody is calling for surrender. That’s yet one more false claim spread by the lunatic right.

    “How does trying to abscond with the powers of CIC show support?”

    I understand that this is a concept which the authoritarian right does not understand, but we have a government with three coequal branches. Congress is acting within its Constitutional authority in exercising oversight over the Executive Branch. The only problem is that they have not yet done enough.

  6. 6
    ThatGayConservative says:

    You can’t have it both ways, first saying the Republicans are going to solve the problem and then denying the problem.

    I’m not denying the problem. I’m saying that you only have speculation that they were intentionally denied the benefit.

    I’m referring to what people have really said, not all fabricated “quotations” that conservative bloggers spread around without regard for what was really said.

    So Senate Majority Failure Reid did not call Gen. Pace incompetent? Tom Lantos wasn’t calling Petraeus a liar when he said “I’m not buying it”?

    Nobody is calling for surrender. That’s yet one more false claim spread by the lunatic right.

    You can call it “redeployment” all you wish. However, no matter how much you polish a turd, it’s still a turd. Call it what you will, but I’ve not seen any liberals call for our victory.

    Congress is acting within its Constitutional authority in exercising oversight over the Executive Branch.

    Authoritarian??? Congress has NO authority of oversight over the CIC with regards to the deployment of our soldiers.

    Article II, Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

    There’s nothing about Legislative or Judicial oversight.

  7. 7
    ThatGayConservative says:

    In other words, it’s not their job and is therefore unconstitutional.

    Now back on subject, don’t you think it’s rational, given that Sh** happens with a large government beauracracy that this was a SNAFU and not some grand scheme to screw the soldiers as you allege?

  8. 8
    Ron Chusid says:

    “So Senate Majority Failure Reid did not call Gen. Pace incompetent? Tom Lantos wasn’t calling Petraeus a liar when he said “I’m not buying it”?”

    That’s all you have to support the whole right wing meme that Democrats do not support the troops? This gets back to your authoritarian viewpoint that the Executive Branch can act without oversight. The Constitution extends beyond Article II, Section 2 but I guess you aren’t interested in those portions which don’t back your views.

    These were both specific statements where were justifiable in their context–not statements showing a generalized lack of support for the troops. The two cases you cite are both situations in which members of the military were acting in a policy making capacity. The handling of the Iraq war does demonstrate incompetence by those leaders responsible. Petraeus did make statements about the conditions in Iraq and it was justifiable to respond by saying “I’m not buying it.” These hardly indicate a Democratic disregard for the troops.

    It is a quite common right wing tactic to take opposition to policy and specific criticism from Democrats and twist it to claim an overall lack of support for the troops. In the use of this tactic, we see both the authoritarian mind set of the right wing as well as the lack of honesty.

    Congress has the powers of the purse, the power to declare war, and the authority to exercise oversight over the Executive Branch in all matters. Did you complain when the Republican Congress did the same during the Clinton years regarding Kosovo? If Congress has no oversight authority, why is Petraeus even testifying?

    “There’s nothing about Legislative or Judicial oversight.”

    Do you have the slightest understanding of the form of government we have?

    “You can call it “redeployment” all you wish. However, no matter how much you polish a turd, it’s still a turd. Call it what you will, but I’ve not seen any liberals call for our victory.”

    There are some liberals who do support remaining, but the majority realize that victory is not possible. We have been placed in a terrible situation due to the incompetence of the Bush administration. We have succeeded in removing Saddam but we have no business being in the middle of a civil war where our presence makes matters worse and undermines our own national security interests. It is just right wing spin to claim this is a choice between surrender or victory.

    “Now back on subject, don’t you think it’s rational, given that Sh** happens with a large government beauracracy that this was a SNAFU and not some grand scheme to screw the soldiers as you allege?”

    No. Considering how they were brought back one day before the deadline, and considering the long history of Republicans trying to reduce benefits to the troops to save money, it makes the most sense to assume it was intentional. Only a real Bush apologist would assume it was a simple SNAFU.

Leave a comment