[an amused spectator]

I specifically stated I wasn't comparing my hypothetical sitution involving Clinton to Bush's situation in Iraq; I was just using that example to demonstrate a situation can exist in which conservatives could support the military but oppose a particular mission of the military. In my example, most conservatives would probably agree that supporting the military would almost necessitate opposing their clearly unwise mission.

Oh, I'm sorry. Let me be even more general. I will remove my reference to Bush, and make my point even clearer for you. As I linked for you in my previous post, a former soldier told Bill Clinton to his face that Clinton was not fit to be Commander in Chief. This would go doubly so for Hillary!

Why would any reasonable person, let alone a conservative, be required to support an incompetent Commander in Chief, or any mission that they assigned? We could pray for those put in harm's way, however.

[Young Scholar]

Why would any reasonable person, let alone a conservative, be required to support an incompetent Commander in Chief, or any mission that they assigned? We could pray for those put in harm's way, however.

That's my point exactly--that's it is at least possible to support the troops even if you disagree with the mission.