Uneasy Rhetoric

Paul Waldman has a scathing article in the American Prospect on just what we will be missing in the absence of a GWBush administration. In amongst diamonds like “the rotating cast of butchers” and the “Bush Doctrine of preemptive war” is this little gem:

Goodbye to the accusation that if you disagree with what the president wants to do, you don’t “support the troops.”

Strangely, I’m a little sad to see this one go. The reason is simple: this attitude represents the high hypocrisy of a certain brand of flag-waving, anti-democratic ignorance–calling it “conservatism” is a gross insult to real conservatives.  The second Obama takes the oath of office in celebration of my 39th birthday, these roving bands of dittoheads will turn their thinking 180 degrees and oppose any decision by the President.  Bringing the troops home will suddenly become a surrender, an insult to those who have already died, as if throwing more bodies on top of the pile would somehow lead to redemption.

If this attitude didn’t go, Obama could bring a swift end to the Iraq morass, focus on real ways to address terrorism world-wide and potential terrorism at home, and do it all without the strident, hateful, voices of these anti-patriots ringing in his ears.

Instead, they will throw up roadblocks and complain that the President, the Commander-in-Chief, doesn’t support the troops. Here’s hoping the roadblocks get overrun by a heaping helping of Yes we can!