You're aiding and abetting and appeasing, and giving comfort and support to, and providing a safe haven to our enemy. You're undercutting, underfunding, not supporting, double crossing the troops. You want to cut and run and declare defeat, you want to cut spending,slow bleed, you want to allow the massacre of innocent Iraqis, you want to just give the oil to Iran and Syria and let the country fall into anarchy.
OK!
To say "you don't support the troops" as an opening suggestion. As the initial subject of your argument is to be the first to suggest that it's even possible for it to be the troops fault at all. Opening your argument with "it's not the troops fault" is to imply that its possible that it is the troops fault and if it were it wouldn't really be the troops fault but it would in some way be the ,inject Straw man, fault of the Democrats or whoever you're opposing for whatever reason.
So let's just stop all this "support the troops" nonsense cause we all believe that being a country As big and influential as ours needs a military, not to intervene in world affairs so much as to protect our national stability from any outside intervention. That doesn't mean going to war to steal country's assets. I can see why people got upset at Steny when he came in the house debate to reprimand the republicans for starting an argument out that way but I think it needs to be addressed. I think mostly it needs to be exposed as what it is. Blaming the mess in Iraq on the troops. Sort of like hearing your dad yell at your mom "You don't love your son!".
