From the beginning, I didn’t support the Iraq War. I didn’t think Iraq had any connections to Al Queda or the September 11th attacks, and I felt that Bush’s motivations for invasion had less to do with protecting America and more to do with showing up his father. But I also never fell into that trap that the Right likes to spring, you know the one: if you don’t support the war, you aren’t supporting the troops. I don’t buy into that logic one damn bit.
A college professor of mine opposed the war – she and her friends stood at the corner of Charles Street near Loyola college several days a week with anti-war signs. But she’s hardly a leftist – she voted for Bush in 2000, and she voted for him again this year. Although, admittedly, she hates John Kerry (during the Vietnam War, she served in a “bouncing betty” ward and never forgave Kerry for his anti-Vietnam rhetoric which she saw as insulting to the limbless men she tended too), and that might’ve influenced her vote. But to say that because she doesn’t support the war, she must not support the troops? No, this is a woman who supported the troops, but not the war. This is a woman who had both her sons serve in the military.
I don’t know why I’m writing about this, I just – oh! – felt frustrated by the right, and their oversimplification of stuff. “Gosh, how do we countermand the leftists anti-war rhetoric? Oh, I know, let’s call them anti-troop.” I mean, yeah, the left does the same stuff too, so it’s not like we’re on the moral high ground on the tactic, but when it comes to the issue — the ill planned, ill thought-through, ill-executed invasion of Iraq, we do have the moral high ground.
Yes, we do.