Who are you really supporting? The Troops or Bush?

This has been bothering me for a long time. While I read what the pro-war bloggers seem to find oh so important to spread all over the net, there is very little they do post about the troops, other than what they believe will "support" Bush. While I do see their point that good news does not get reported on the nightly news, apparently they didn't notice the bad news does not get reported either.

Consider this from the GAO

GAO Report Faults Post-'Surge' Planning
Lack of Comprehensive Strategy Cited, but Pentagon Study Sees Gains in Iraq

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 24, 2008; A14



The administration lacks an updated and comprehensive Iraq strategy to move beyond the "surge" of combat troops President Bush launched in January 2007 as an 18-month effort to curtail violence and build Iraqi democracy, government investigators said yesterday.

While agreeing with the administration that violence has decreased sharply, a report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office concluded that many other goals Bush outlined a year and a half ago in the "New Way Forward" strategy remain unmet.

The report, after a bleak GAO assessment last summer, cited little improvement in the ability of the Iraqi security forces to act independently of the U.S. military, and noted that key legislation passed by the Iraqi parliament had not been implemented while other crucial laws had not been passed. The report also judged that key Iraqi ministries spent less of their allocated budgets last year than in previous years, and said that oil and electricity production had repeatedly not met U.S. targets.
go here for more
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062302050_pf.html

Since the surge, we've heard the surge is working even while the death count of US forces reached an all time yearly high. In April when the death count of US forces increased to over 50, not one word was said yet as soon as the death count dropped, it was all over the pro-war blog sites. Had they really supported the troops they would post the bad with the good because both parts of events in Iraq involve them.

When they come home wounded and not taken care of properly, they are again ignored by the pro-war bloggers. The media was attacked for reporting on the bad conditions. All in all, when they claim to be supporting the troops, they are really supporting Bush and don't care how he treats them. Wounds not taken care of are no problem to them. Backlogged claims, no problem. Food stamps and unemployment lines and homelessness, no problem for the pro-war bloggers. Very, very sad. I'd like to say at least they are paying attention to the troops, Iraq and Afghanistan, but they aren't. If they were, they would post whatever news they could find since very little is coming out on either occupation.