Hypothetical: Kerry is now president, do the Repugs support the troops?

[Behind the Aegis]

I have seen a number of posts recently, mainly due to a "bomb" here, about DU (progressives and liberals) not supporting the troops. I categorically do NOT believe DU is anti-troops! As a matter of fact, it seems that there is quite a groundswell of support here. I also know that Democrats are traditionally more interested in vet issues than the other side. So here is a question: The election is discovered to be a fraud, Kerry wins and now is in office. Would we see the same support from the Republicans for Operation Iraqi Liberation? Or would the support go the way of the dodo?

Put on your thinking caps (or tinfoil, if you choose), and make your case!

[HawkerHurricane]

1. Non-Hypothetical

Since the REPUCKS don't support the troops NOW, why would they change just because a Democrat is President?

Republicans don't support the military. They support military contractors.

Cutting VA, threatening to cut combat pay, forcing hospitalized soldiers to pay for thier own food, 'targeted' pay raises that cranks up officer pay while freezing enlisted men, sending troops into a war zone unnescarrily, sending them to war without adequate equipment... that is not supporting the troops.

It wouldn't change just because a better man was President.

[NAO]

2. They would say they support the troops but oppose Kerry's foreign wars

which are imperialistic and part of the empire project of "global liberalism".

They would say the Kerry is betraying the troops and betraying our country and draining our treasury and making us less secure.

Think back to the failed hostage rescue attempt that happened during the Carter presidency. They repukes said it was all Carter's fault, as if he were micromanaging the entire US military.

BTW, Carter had actually served in the Navy, whereas that senile moron Ronald Raygun was just another loud mouthed Hollywood Actor that the repukes say they hate so much. But he read his lines, and beat the drums of jingoism, and everyone felt that the military was stronger just because we had him as president.

Whenever Ronald Raygun comes up, I always feel the need to remind people that he was the founder of Al-Quada, and the first official sponsor of Osama Bin Laden. Ronald Raygun FORCED all of the taxpayers of the US to provide material support to Osama Bin Laden. I really wish the news had covered that during the media worship fest when he died last summer.

[indepat]

3. Repugs solely support what furthers their agenda

[Coventina]

4. This post actually almost made me glad Kerry didn't win

Because if he had, immediately the Pukes would have started insisting that "good results" come out of Iraq. Every dead soldier would be paraded on TV as Kerry's personal failure. Suddenly the money would become a big issue. Why isn't Iraq getting rebuilt faster? would be on everyone's lips.

No one would remember that the idiot man-child Bush II got us there in the first place. It would go down in history as Kerry's massive failure, not Bush's.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. I agree!

The first thing that would be lifted would be the ban on showing dead soldiers arriving at Dover AFB! Then, they would yell and scream about all the innocent soldiers dying! I really think the hypocrisy of not supporting the C-i-C during a time of "war" would be become VERY obvious!

I am sure to, by this time, the "affair" Kerry had would be slapped all over the place and no one in MSM would come back and 'apologize' for reporting based on fake shit!

I just thought with all the "troop" threads out there right now, this twist would be interesting.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

5. Kerry turned Iraq over to Khomeini lovers

That's what we'd be hearing, Kerry let Iranian extremists take over. And that would be their excuse to end the occupation because our boys shouldn't be dying because Kerry let the country fall to a bunch of Khomeini lovers.

And we don't do that because we know the situation is alot more complicated, Bush isn't going to pull our troops out, and we want any kind of stability so we can demand the troops be pulled out.

But maybe we should. Bush let Iraq fall into the hands of a bunch of Khomeini lovers.

[smoogatz]

6. Would they uncritically support the Commander in Chief?

Which is what the Radical Right politicians mean when they say we should all support the troops. Obviously the answer to that is a big, fat No. I'm personally still not sure what it means for the average American citizen to "support the troops." We tried slapping one of those ribbon magnets on our SUV, but people are still getting killed over there. Seriously, is there someplace I can donate $20 to help buy some body armor for one of these fifty-year-old reservist grandpas that's been sucked into the war by W's backdoor draft?

[bush_is_wacko]

9. Oh hell no! The would be condemning Kerry for every dome he asked for.

And he would ask for more money. Those Iraqi troops MUST be trained and we must do a better job at protecting them while they are being trained. I don't think it takes 140,000 troops to train them though. In fact, I think Kerry's idea of removing them from the danger zone while under training is an EXCELLENT idea.

As long as there is a majority of thugs in the WH they will repeatedly condemn everything the Dem's do. I do think there are a few that might support Democratic ideals, but certainly NOT most.

Truthfully though, I think Kerry could get a little more bi-partisan cooperation than bush can. I also think he would be able to get help from other nations.