Precisely. His stance on this war (intending to stay and "complete" it) proves that he's going to be another president who's more interested in private interest groups, rather than what's best for the actual people of the country. He'll be more interested in his rich buddies (Bush included) and himself, all the while telling any citizen who objects that they're "unamerican," a "non-patriot," or an "aging hippy liberal douche."Freakzilla wrote:I don't know, but it will smell like gasoline.Drunken Idaho wrote:The republicans keep saying things like "victory is in sight" but what does that even mean? They never actually explain exactly how victory is in sight! What is a victory in this war, anyway? Finding WMDs? No, because there are none. Toppling Saddam? Done, but troops are still there. Establishing democracy? Good fucking luck.
Did you see McCain's trophy wife berating Obama for "not supporting her son" by voting against a bill for more troop funding? I guess her idea of supporting her own son is to keep him in harm's way as long as possible. The bill had no exit timetable, and that's why Obama didn't vote in favor. But it was just a cheap attack by a raging cunt who, let's face it, is already thinking about how $weet retirement is going to be.
That's why I don't understand this whole "support our troops" nonsense. People make the assumption that if you're against the war, then you're doing some great injustice to the "brave young men and women risking their lives for the love of their country." But what about if they never should have been there in the first place? To me, the only way to truly support these soldiers would be to get them to safety, and bring them home.
Otherwise, it's just "support our warmongerers..."
