When Karl Rove made that comment, he was referring to John McCain's full-throated support of Bush's Hundred Year War.  I'd like to point out to Mr. Rove--as well as all the administration warmongers who never actually fought in a war themselves--that soldiers and Marines no longer use foxholes.  They haven't, in fact, used foxholes since World War II or possibly Korea.  We haven't fought a conventional war in 60 years, not that many Republicans would actually know that.

I would also like to be the first to point out that John McCain, for all his couragous heroism in enduring horrific torture as  a P.O. W. at the hands of the North Vietnamese enemy--still never actually FOUGHT in a war.  Fighter and bomber pilots do not fight in wars; they fly above them. 

Remember that old episode of M*A*S*H, when a disgusted and infuriated Hawkeye Pierce, who'd been listening to a bomber pilot brag about hitting all his "targets," dragged the stunned man through the hospital ward, forcing him to gaze at the maimed children his bombs had hurt?

Donald Rumsfeld was a pilot, too.

Karl Rove may have only been using a figure of speech in his analogy of McCain's war support--the full quote reads:  "McCain made clear, 'I'm with you and we'll die in the last foxhole together if need be.'  Rather than draw away from the unpopular strategy, McCain hugged it even tighter."

Hmmm.  I would also like to explain to our chickenhawk spokesman that there is a difference--militarily speaking--between STRATEGY and TACTIC.  The so-called "surge," or temporary troop escalation, is a battle TACTIC.  Not to be confused with strategy, though again, I would not expect most Republicans who glorify war while, at the same time, cutting the benefits allotted to those maimed and injured and tormented by those said wars, as well as hiding away from the public the flag-draped caskets of those returning from their war in a cargo plane, to understand the difference.

Sen. McCain likes to say that either of the Democratic candidates "want to wave the white flag of surrender."  He drives around a bus he likes to call the "No Surrender" bus.

We already know what kind of attacks his campaign will make on our nominee, because we've been putting up with it since 2003.  It's the same old tired rhetoric.  You either "support the troops"--meaning, US and OUR WAR--or, you are a coward, a cut-and-runner, a surrenderer.

These troops though--the ones used as stage props for just about every speech Bush gives--they seem to be giving their campaign contribution support to...the Democrats.

In fact, Sen. Barack Obama--who everybody knows is my candidate of choice--has received individual campaign contributions from NINETY-FOUR THOUSAND ACTIVE-DUTY TROOPS--more than ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES IN EITHER PARTY PUT TOGETHER. 

Over on another thread--long since lost in the recent TPM server-shuffle--this issue was discussed.  I think it was Greg Sergent who had mentioned the statistic, and mused that perhaps they were supporting Obama because they thought he secretly supported the war effort, since he'd voted to fund the war several times.  The first person to post agreed vehemently, claiming that these nameless faceless "troops" would support any war-mongerer over peace activists.

I posted immediately and explained that they'd BOTH missed the point.  The truth, I said, is that these "troops" everybody likes to brag about...are utterly EXHAUSTED by Bush's Wars.  Repeated combat re-deployments, stop-loss, lowered recruitment standards, less time home between deployments (spent training for more war), the psychological and physical costs of these deployments, and the unimaginable strain on families...had worn out our armed forces.

They know that Sen. Obama spoke out against the war in the first place, naming many of these same reasons, at a time when it was not politically expedient to do so.  They know he has said that the first thing he'd do after Inauguration, is meet with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and start drawing up plans to end this war.

I emphasized that NONE OF THESE TROOPS WANT TO RETURN TO IRAQ ONCE THEY'VE BEEN.  The only ones still gung-ho, I said, either have never deployed, had an office job and never went "outside the wire" during a deployment, or had only just deployed the first time.

"Soldiers and Marines like my son and nephews," I said, "who have been and been and BEEN, who've survived getting 'blown up' and seen buddies buried, have had enough of war and enough of the military."

To my deep gratification, active-duty soldier after active-duty soldier--some naming their units and ranks--supported every word I'd said.  They said it was an accurate assessment, and that they wanted this war to end.

My son, after two combat deployments to the Anbar with the Marines, now supports Barack Obama.  My nephew, who did three combat deployments and is extremely conservative in his political outlook, has said he, too, will vote for Obama. 

Whether we support Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I think we as Democrats need to recognize that the Republicans are going to run a man considered to be a war-hero, and who, according to Karl Rove, hugged George W. Bush tight on Iraq.

Bush wants to preserve his legacy, and more than anything else in the world, he wants to keep his war going.  He and his formidable forces will gather like tornado clouds on the horizon to put their warmongering candidate in the White House to continue Bush's War into the next millenium.

They will use "the troops" as propoganda, ignoring the fact that those same troops are sick of war and want to come home.

The only true way we can "support the troops" is to work our hearts out--take nothing for granted; give no quarter--to put a Democrat in the White House and give him or her a large enough majority in Congress to end this bloody stinking war once and for all.

I do not disagree with Hillary when she says that we must be far more careful getting out than we did getting in, nor do I think we should leave the Iraqis high and dry after destroying their country's infrastructure and government.

But they will never step up and start defending their country until they no longer have their big burly American bodyguards to do it for them.  We must send them a clear signal that their time is limited; we're pulling the majority of our combat troops out; they'd better start functioning as a government and as an army.

And none of this will happen if we don't turn outselves inside-out to prevent the Republicans from using war to paint us with the brush of cowardice.

If they think wars are still fought in foxholes, let THEM go to Iraq, dig one in the Diyala province, and see how well they are protected.

The surge has "worked" only because we are still there in full force.  It has not worked as far as STRATEGY is concerned, and that is, a governing body in Iraq.  It won't work as long as we're doing their work for them.

We must send an overwhelming mandate of a message to the White House and to Congress in this election:  Hug tight to George W. Bush's Hundred Year War...and die by it.