GRE analysis problem test prep [i]

Here's an excerpt from a BBC article discussing a war funding bill that carried a deadline to pull out of Iraq. The dems timed it so the inevitable veto would happen on the fourth anniversary of 'Mission Accomplished.'

Speaking before the signing of the bill, White House spokeswoman
Dana Perino accused the Democrats of cynically delaying the move
so it would coincide with the anniversary for political gain.

"It's very disturbing to think that they possibly held up this money
for the troops and the troops' families and the resources they need
to try some PR stunt on this day," Ms Perino said.

What? The White House is criticizing Congress for delaying a bill that it vetoed. If holding up the money the troops need is 'very disturbing', how do you describe denying it altogether?

For sure it's nothing more than a trife potshot at an opposing party; yet another attempt to capitalize on the country's wartime emotion. But if any politician can be so blatantly illogical, for all the 24 hour news services we have, we aren't very well informed.

Did you catch it?

Support our troops [a]

It used to be that whenever you wanted to win an argument in political discourse, you just had to bring up Nazi Germany. It was the perfect catch-all; compare something to Naziism and it was instantly bad, even if you got the analogy and/or history wrong. So long reductio ad hitlerum, since 2003 the motivation for everything you see and read and hear is based on what is most supportive of our troops.

Sure, it's been an annoyance since day one. If you wanted to be patriotic and non-partisan, you just needed a 'Support Our Troops' emblem. It showed you didn't want Americans to die, but were too busy or stupid to deal with the issues that put them in harm's way.

Almost four years later, after the bumper stickers have faded and the slogans have become a kneejerk response to any discussion of politics at home and abroad, the ineffect of 'supporting our troops' has become lucid. The recent congressional discussions of a devastating and nonbinding resolution to reject the deployment of 20,000 more soldiers has shown that:

• Bringing our boys home will support the troops by removing them from the battlefield.
  
• Sending reinforcements will support the troops by increasing security in Iraq.

Wow, awesome, anything we do short of dumping our petroleum reserves into the Hudson Bay is in support of our troops. That's reassuring. I understand that 'Support Our Troops' is so hot right now, but maybe we'll one day realize that the maxim is:

1. Stale
2. Without argumentative consequence

But it's nice to know our soldiers have been logically separated from the intent to go to war. I recall a few decades ago the kids who were impressed into service were jeered and spat on for their unwilling participation in an unpopular war. But in this unpopular war, they're recognized as mere agents of a greater will. As it should be, people far above them call the shots.

We support our tools (ignore the negative connotation). Tools used by an administration for - whatever goal our involvement in Iraq currently is. And tools used by politicians and car bumpers to distinguish themselves as patriots.