March 1, 2007

This is really indefensible

My texas friend thinks I that perhaps I am outraged all the time about things. And maybe he is right, but I honestly don't know how to look at this administration and not feel that way. For example, I have been thinking about this wounded vet story all week. The original story was horrible enough--and we had a glimpse of what could be when Robert Gates thanked the WaPo for breaking the story and pledged to stop this horrible mistreatment of the troops. But now we see that the military is going to simply make those same troops just stop talking to the press to make this go away.

But it isn't just those Walter Reed patients. Marty notes the story about ABC News anchor Bob Woodruff who narrowly survived a brain injury when an IED exploded near his armored vehicle. But as she notes, thanks to the weaponry used, body armor, etc., the signature wound of the Iraq war is the Traumatic Brain Injury--and Congress (before the Democratic takeover) wanted to cut funding into researching those injuries.

And yet, it is still commonly asserted that liberals don't care about the troops and are anti-military. Leaving the liberals aside for a minute, the real question is how do conservatives with yellow ribbons on their SUVs but voting for reductions in veterans benefits or research into TBIs still say they are pro-troops? How do they support a President who has almost single handedly ruined our military and still say that they are all pro-military.

I think Anglican is right. They are pro-military in the same way that corporations are pro-immigrant workers.


Bruce said...

I still think that the Republicans work very hard to portray themselves as the alpha male party. This image persists despite the facts on the ground. If you're not paying much attention to details you'll be fooled by the rhetoric into thinking that the Republicans are "strong" and "tough" and that the Democrats who seem stuck on the debating the facts are wishy-washy and indecisive and therefore weak.

The track record of the Republicans speaks louder than their image. Their support for the military extends primarily to executives and shareholders of the top military companies. They view soldiers just like any other company views its employees - as long as they perform their job and keep quiet they're great, but as soon as they want something - like health care, or benefits, or training its viewed as a burden to be avoided.

I think you have to be outraged these days, unless you just don't care.

Bootleg Blogger said...

Streako- remember you have more than one friend in tejas! Anyway, it's an old, old tactic to accuse you of being "outraged" (or any of the following; angry, reactionary, self righteous, trouble maker, unpatriotic, aiding the enemy, etc...) when you actually are upset for good reasons that embarrass someone else or might upset their "good thing". Of course, I'm just as bad in principle, I guess. I question anyone who's NOT outraged by the article. Outrage at unfairness, forgetting people who can't speak for themselves, and using people as canon fodder doesn't have a political agenda. Anyone from any party, especially veterans, should be upset. Unfortunately, nowadays everything gets politicized, even brain injury research. Perhaps some disgust should be thrown in on top of things. Later-BB

Streak said...

Damn, I forgot about OTHER friends in tejas!

I think more people are disgusted by this, but they have sold their souls to people like Bush. Hard to get it back.