Postwar?

by

I caught this link over at talkingpointsmemo.com regarding the status of the War in Iraq in terms of the upcoming election:

The most idiotic campaign punditry in recent days has been the assertion that the Iraq war as an issue is so over. Like, so last summer. It reached a climax today, Tuesday, with David Brooks’ column in The New York Times declaring that we are now in the “postwar” period. Brooks calls this suddenly “a postwar election,” repeating that phrase several times. The public, he suggests, is changing from “a war mentality to a peace mentality.”

Postwar? Peace? Try telling that to the soldiers in Iraq, and the families whose kids are still coming home minus a limb or part of their brain. Last I checked we were still spending billions of dollars a month Over There and I haven’t heard about any bases, or the grand embassy, being dismantled. A new Gallup poll (see below) disputes the notion, anyway. Is the issue a little less “hot”? Surely. But to say it is over is an obscenity.

Read more: gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com

Can we start accusing right wing pundits of not supporting the troops now?

If saying, “end this war” is tantamount to treason, as some of those shitheads have actually suggested, I would, and do, argue that calling the situation at hand “a postwar period” is far more damaging than simply asking the boys to come home.

They are, in fact, saying “bring ’em home” is somehow a damaging statement, while, at the same time saying “stay over there; damn glad the wars over”.

It boggles the mind, does it not?

by