Unleashing The Hounds
I'm afraid that what is often really meant by "Support Our Troops" is "unleash the eager young studs so they can conquer the infidel race on our behalf."
It's dehumanization at its most vulgar. The troops are seen as programmed killers who aren't "supported" unless they're allowed to do what they are programmed to do. And if Central Casting sends us a really juicy set of bad guys, exploiting our basest fears and prejudices, then all the more reason to allow our "attack dogs" to do the dirty work of "preserving freedom." Restraint is for pussies.
Yes, many Democrats advocate greater financial support for the "grunts" than BushCo has...but they also might put a leash on the "dogs" at some point. They might show some prudence, demonstrate some perspective, and offer some basic human decency toward brave young Americans in peril.
We can't let them tax 'n' spenders spoil all our primal, repitilian-brain fun by doing that, can we?
Damn I hate it when Bill Clinton's lies about his sex life are put on the same moral plane as George W. Bush's lies about going to war. Much more needless bloodshed arose from the latter, but I think I understand where the false equivalency comes from.
Unfortunately there is a deep and widespread psychological underpinning to ethical comparisons between Bush and Clinton.
The real difference between the two, is that Bush purposely stroked America's collective reptile brain with visions of manly Empire conquest against an evil infidel race, and as a result many let his transgressions slide. Clinton carelessly stoked a still-powerful repulsion toward sexual deviancy in the public arena, and therefore many continue to hold his transgressions as the epitome of corruption.
Mass mental illness was revealed in both cases, but Bush the ruthless politician wins (for now) the PR battle over Clinton by having been purposeful in his corruption rather than careless.
In short: Clinton exposing his penis = bad. Bush exposing his "penis" = good.