The GOP and their reckless Deceiver-in-Chief have been claiming their warmongering blunders have all been in support of the troops, but the troops are no longer supporting them and neither are their families.
Nearly six out of every 10 military families disapprove of Bush's job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does.It's unsurprising. The death toll stands at nearly 3,900 and the wounded allegedly at 29,000, a figure that no doubt is too low considering the Pentagon's creative accounting system for such statistics. It surely doesn't count among the dead those who commit suicide at home once they return or those who are discharged for alleged pre-existing conditions without receiving the benefits rightly due to them. Nor do the figures convey the horror of the survivors who are left permanently disabled and grossly disfigured; injuries that will impact the soldiers and their families for a lifetime. Furthermore, a majority of the families agree that the administration's handling of the needs of the able-bodied troops still in theater is sorely lacking.
And among those families with soldiers, sailors and Marines who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60% say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, the same result as all adults surveyed. [...]
The most interesting statistic though is one that belies the warmonger's false contention that criticizing the occupation is unpatriotic.
And most military families and others surveyed took no exception to retired officers publicly criticizing the Bush administration's execution of the war. More than half of the respondents in both groups -- 58% -- say such candor is appropriate. Families with someone who had served in the war are about equally supportive at 55%.In fact, one cannot show more support for the troops than by condeming the occupation. If we at home, and those who have lived through real wars, don't speak up, who will advocate for the troops while the Bush administration consistently turns their backs on them?