You say you "Support the Troops"

The blogosphere is loaded with articulate men who understand the threat of terrorism and can then succinctly convey clear thoughts on the war. I'm not sure why, but there are not a lot of women who write with a military sense of the war.

However, Lorie Byrd at Wizbang! is one of them. Lorie "get's it." Her column this morning at Townhall.com is significant and I hope it gets a lot of traction in the 'sphere. Here's an excerpt from "Many Democrats Won't Stand For Victory In Iraq":

"Hugh Hewitt addressed what it means to “encourage the enemy” saying it “means to increase their will to fight on, and their courage to do so even in the face of the arrival of reinforcements. It also means to increase –substantially—the likelihood of redoubled and retripled efforts on their part to kill American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.”

Hewitt went on to say “Democrats are willing to encourage the enemy if it means hurting George W. Bush. They are willing to disregard the advice of the general they have just sent to do a mission if it serves their political purposes.” That is a pretty bold accusation to make and not one I am eager to embrace, but everything I have seen over the past three years tells me that Hewitt is right and that the behavior did not begin with the current resolution.

In Tuesday’s State of the Union address, the President’s calls for victory in Iraq were met from the Democrat side of the aisle with intentional silence. Most Democrats would not applaud, much less stand, for victory in Iraq. Over the past months and years, those on the left have gone to great effort to paint the mission in Iraq as “failed,” “doomed” and a “disaster.” They have failed to acknowledge the accomplishments of the U.S. military in Iraq, but have been quick to talk about those in our armed forces as child victims of a failed policy or (worse) as bloodthirsty thugs engaging in torture and terror.