Yesterday, I posted a diary asking help in formulating a response to an editorial printed in my local newspaper that slanders those who oppose Bush’s escalation.
I have written a draft of a response (quoted over the flip). There were many things I wanted to talk about such as the fact the all three Iraq war veterans in Congress voted for the resolution, how the Iraq War took time, effort, troops, materiale, and attention away from the hunt for Osama, and so on. However, I decided to keep in short (158 words) and focus only on the question of supporting the troops, hoping it will increase the chances of getting printed.
This letter is in response to Monday’s editorial by Cal Thomas, an article full of untruths, faulty logic, and distortion. What I really want to address is Thomas’ main argument that those who oppose Bush’s plan to escalate the Iraq War by sending 20,000 more troops into Iraq do not support the troops. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The greatest test of one’s support for the troops is not how fervently one waves the flag or how quickly one gets behind whatever plan the President has, it’s making sure that troops are asked to risk and give their lives only when absolutely necessary and only when some good will come of it.
So, those of us who oppose escalation support our troops by demanding that they not be sent into the crossfire of a civil war, knowing that past troop increases have not helped and that the President has no clear definition of what constitutes victory.
Thank you for diarying here. However, we do ask that in the future, your diaries cover topics relevant to the mission of the Swing State Project: ie, campaigns and elections. There are lots of other sites that would probably be much better suited towards helping you deal with your local right-wing media establishment. SSP unfortunately falls a bit short on that score.