Actually, I have found that sentiment to make a lot of sense. If our troops are sent into a region to fight, but the war itself is damaging to the country (and others) I would not support the war. However, since I am only one vote, there would still be soldiers in harms way in that war regardless of my lack of support for it. So I would be highly critical of any bad deployment, of sending them in without adequate armor, and of not working hard enough to get them out of harm's way, etc.
I don't see why this is hypocritical, or illogical.
It's very hypocritical... and most of those who make that statement, will
not admit to underlying beliefs. The left has learned to cloak their anti-military intolerance with the magic words, "We support the troops."
The liberal media use the same line when they undermine the military. In this, as in other things, the flagship of the media is the New York Times.
Unsubstantiated charges against American troops in Iraq are front page news but incredible acts of heroism in battle are seldom reported there, if at all.
That. Is. Fact.
Although things go wrong in every war, things that went wrong in Iraq -- whether large or small -- have been front page news in the New York Times. But when the military surge was followed by things going right, the Iraq war was suddenly no longer front page news.
Back during the Vietnam war, the media criticized the American military for their emphasis on enemy casualties or "body count."
Today the media have been fixated on American body count.
What has been accomplished by the troops who lost their lives in battle has been of no interest to those who claim to be "supporting the troops."
That thousands of Iraqis who fled the country during the height of the violence and turmoil are now returning is no big deal to the media.
Those in the military who made this possible by putting their own lives on the line are not heroes to the media/left. Indeed, one of the consistent patterns in the liberal media has been to depict the troops not as heroes but as victims.
The financial problems of some reservists who were called away from their civilian jobs were front page news in the New York Times. So were sorrowful goodbyes from family and friends.
All these things made the troops victims. So does body count.
Just last month, the New York Times found yet another way to portray the troops as victims. They ran a very long article, beginning on the front page of the January 13th issue, about killings in the United States by combat veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
"In many of those cases," it said, "combat trauma and the stress of deployment" were among the factors which "appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction."
As with so many other things said by liberals, the big question that was not asked was: Compared to what?
As the New York Post reported a couple of days later, t
he murder rate among returning military combat veterans is one-fifth that of civilians in the same age brackets.
You fuckers get away with so much via the mainstream media (NY Times, LA Times, NBC, NPR, CNN, CBS)... and you are shocked and dismayed why Air America fails and Limbaugh was the biggest thing on radio, yet there is still room for Hannity, Savage, and now Dennis Miller.
So much for "supporting the troops" by depicting them as victims.
/tsowell