Centrist Dems Urge Military Enlargement

[tuvor]

By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 33 minutes ago

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Centrists who contend Democrats cannot retake the White House until voters trust the party to protect them said Sunday the Army should expand by 100,000 soldiers and that colleges should open their campuses to military recruiters.

"A Democrat has to show the toughness to govern," said Al From, founder of the Democratic Leadership Council. "People don't doubt that Republicans will be tough."

From argued that national security and safety are threshold issues for swing voters who increasingly are trending Republican.

"We're using the National Guard as a backdoor draft," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/democrats_moderates;_ylt=Ah4.S1BBeNaX0LlBdSQOmyEDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

1. disgusting n/t

.

[bassman79]

2. Proving once again...

that anyone who dares suggest that both parties are completely controled by the Military Industrial Complex to provide an illusion of choice are paranoid conspriracy kooks.

[Vincardog]

3. Anything Else we can do to help the RNC?

Hey DLC get the fk out of my party.

[flaminbats]

40. this is why liberals must join the Republican party..

neither the DLC or neocons want anything to do with liberals. Both groups believe spending more than the rest of the world combined on the military isn't sufficient. Neither group thinks we should invest more public dollars on education, healthcare, or ending global poverty. However both groups believe recklessly pouring more tax dollars into the military is the solution for all our problems!

What shall happen when minorities, gays, and tradition liberal voters finally ditch the Democrats to join the Republicans?

[Vincardog]

97. Why would minorities, gays, and tradition liberal voters finally ditch the

Democrats to join the Republicans? It is hard work fighting for the soul of the Democratic party.

[asthmaticeog]

4. Fuck the DLC.

Also, fuck the DLC.

[nolabels]

89. They are like a weak and frail sister with the old hat line..........

'I want some too' :cry:

Like when are they going to cut the umbilical cord already :shrug:

[EFerrari]

5. Can't we excommunicate these Neos or something?

Put their shoes outside on the sidewalk or say three times, "We divorce you"?

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[cal04]

6. Lets take Michael Moore and see how many

of their kids, grand kids we can sign up

[goforit]

7. They are going down with Bush 100%....Their polls are worse than Bush

:argh:

[cornermouse]

8. Why don't we just get out of Iraq.

Its a simple solution, but it would solve multiple problems.

[mbperrin]

15. Today would be a good day for it.

Wouldn't it?

[cornermouse]

28. It sure would.

Yesterday would have been even better. Think of the lives and quality of life that would have been saved.

[Lorien]

9. Voters are growing weary of "toughness"

they long for wisdom, common sense, and honesty. Republicans are tough-on the wrong targets. Iraq burns while Osama walks free. Soldiers and Civilians die, billions are wasted, while domestic issues remain unfunded, the economy falters, and our borders remain unguarded. Toughness combined with stupidity and greed is destroying our Nation. Wake up, Al; the people want an OPPOSITION party!

[0007]

43. I couldn't have said it better....

When the people of this great nation do wake up they're gonna be pissed . . . then watch out!

[movonne]

10. Maybe they are doing this to push the draft thing...right now do we

have enough soldiers without a draft??

[liberaliraqvet26]

11. Adding troops would not be bad....

it would help alleviate the stress on the current force. The same soldiers are going back on deployments over and over again. This is not fair to them. There is nothing wrong with having a large military, the problem is having them led by incompetant chickenhawk lying assholes who attacked the wrong country. Plus wouldn't you rather have real soldiers do the job than crooked defense contractors like halliburton.

[Lorien]

25. Adding troops for the reasons you stated would not be bad

adding them just to ensure that the democrats "look tough", though...If appearing strong is what's needed, then our leaders should stand up to the opposition; demand that bin Laden be brought to justice, that Saudi ties to 9/11 be investigated, and that the unjust war in Iraq be brought to an end

[cornermouse]

30. Impractical.

Remember that we had to "hold up" on our invasion plans because China had not shipped enough of something they were manufacturing for our military?

No. We need to get out of Iraq. There's no point in compounding a mistake. Additionally, they may not have hated us when we went in, but after everything we've done they do now.

[sandnsea]

63. That's the general reason

That one makes sense, but we don't need 100,000 to do it. And we certainly don't need to do it to "look tough", that's just flat stupid.

[ClintonTyree]

12. There's some pretty powerful people........

in that group. More than one potential Democratic nominee for President in '08 I imagine. What can we do between now and then to let them know this "centrist" bullshit has to stop?

"Centrist" to them is a Reagan Republican. This portion of the Party has severely lost it's way, but they wield a ton of power and they're as much for sale as any Republican. I cannot support one of these "centrists" ever again.

There's going to have to be a show-down for the soul of our Party, and if the so called "centrists" win that battle, I'm going to have to find another Party.

There are many here, some quite influential, that support these people and all they stand for. They say that these people are our only hope of regaining control of this Country. I say, if these people are in control NOTHING will have changed except there will be a (D) behind the person's name.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

[Demeter]

17. But Are They Going to Get Any Money From the Rubes?

I don't think so! Not this one, anyway!

[ClintonTyree]

23. Maybe not us.............

but their Corporate Sponsors are lining up as we speak. That's what I mean, "there's not a dime's worth of difference" (hmm, where have I heard THAT phrase before?) between the DLC and the Slugs.
The grass roots supporters aren't going to finance these folks, but believe me, Corporate America has a vested interest in seeing that the apple cart isn't upset. I have a distinct feeling that Corporate America is suddenly going to swing to the Democratic Party in '08 after the bush administration meltdown.
The DLC can be bought just as easily as the Slugs, IMO.

[goforit]

13. I thought Bush was dumb but Centrist Dems are Dumber!!!

[Democrats_win]

14. Kerry already did this and failed. Plus its a bad policy to boot.

Consider how our military "prevented" 9/11--it didn't.

Then consider that 9/11 was blowback from past military ops.

Are we safer or in more danger because of foolish republican actions? Lets just have a military large enough to actually defend America rather than invade someone.

[Jim Sagle]

16. From doesn't get it.

A Democrat has to show the toughness to govern.

Caving in to RNC spin about the military shows weakness, not toughness. Dean shows toughness. Lieberman shows weakness. Biden shows stupidity.

[Al-CIAda]

18. They also 'urged' the bakruptcy bill to the floor. Worthless

traitorous POSs.

[gulfcoastliberal]

45. Now they're 'urging' CAFTA

Even though the House "New Dems" have signaled their opposition.

[Pepperbelly]

19. He is both premature AND wrong ...

First things first ... the entanglement in Iraq distorts what we have. We have 125K + stuck there when they should not be. There is no reason for them to be there, there never was, and now, it in no way serves the interests of either the USA or Iraq.

Then we should actually take a look at what it is that we want our military to do and tailor it accordingly. We do not need a military for adventurism, colonialism, or nationalism. We need our military for the protection of our interests. IMO, our interests include our own physical safety, the physical safety of our friends with whom we have treaty obligations, the protection of the sea lanes to insure the flow of commerce across the planet and to us in particular, and to meet peace-keeping committments we have made to the UN and NATO.

What would it take to do those things? That is where we should begin. What is the purpose of our military? Before increasing it, we should really examine that question.

[creeksneakers2]

37. We must reevaluate our role in the world

Protecting allies and keeping open sea lanes should not be our burdens to carry alone. Most of the allies we are protecting can now afford to protect themselves. Others ought to be working on ways to achieve independence. All nations should be contributing to global security.

Nobody is attacking us or even threatening us. Democrats should stop calling military spending "defense spending" and start calling it what it really is - foreign military aide.

[Greyhound]

47. or the even more accurate - corporate welfare n/t

[wuushew]

38. Protecting sea lanes could lead to Carter Doctrine quagmire

the need to protect the shipping lanes for Persian gulf oil is one of the main reasons we have such a large military presence in the Arab world. This in turn has fueled anti-American anger and terrorism.

I fail to see why shipping losses from violence or piracy could not be dealt with by using a free market approach such as increased use of insurance. If cheap Chinese crap or oil carried additional risk premiums maybe you would actually see manufacturing moving back to the United States or real efforts at alternative energy sources.

Its hard to get choked up about a financial loss to a large multi-national company when it loses a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. Crewed by a polyglot assembly of non-Americans its profits go strait to wealthy shareholders via the Grand Cayman islands.

Maybe if it was a cruise ship or a U.S. Navy vessel a legitimate national not corporate interest would be involved.

[Pepperbelly]

42. I disagree ...

I think that maintaining the sea lanes IS the second highest priority, right after defending US from physical attack.

[wuushew]

52. The U.S. is not Britain in WWII

and there is no equivalent to a Nazi Germany in modern times. We certainly will not starve.

If a private vessel is victim of attack only the material value of the cargo is lost. No good or product is worth the potential loss of life when gunboat diplomacy is used. Crews sailing into dangerous regions should receive hazard pay much like other professions people choose freely to enter.

Error free military judgment is not possible as evidenced by the downing of a Iranian airliner by a U.S. cruiser. If a belligerent country damages commercial goods a redress by diplomacy or sanctions should apply quite a bit of pressure.

Any nation that is in a position to threaten international maritime concerns most likely itself has much to gain from such commerce and as of yet few countries have outright refused a sufficiently large carrot. Our carrot is of course huge owing to the largest and most successful economy in the history of the world.

[Pepperbelly]

58. Our dependence is far greater ...

Far greater.

[wuushew]

61. by our foolish choice of outsourcing

I for one will not consent to a 21st century version of a Barbary pirates policy. The west's insistence on an absolute right to trade is what forcibly opened up China and Japan by gunpoint. Why can't we be like the French voyagers of old only going were we are wanted and when it benefits both parties?

The materials that made this country great still exist in quantity save oil. The Minnesota iron deposits, the domestic bauxite deposits, and the millions upon millions of acres of agricultural land still are quite viable from a production standpoint. Labor costs have allowed us to become artificially vulnerable to trade disruptions. The politically lazy and morally bankrupt among us often use excuses to shed blood in the pursuit of money.

Do you think that more people will die from indirect economic harm than from U.S. power exercised abroad? I think this is false choice since we could easily provide universal health care, housing and a soup kitchen on every corner with the resources available to us. The powerful elite make such the necessary domestic sacrifices politically difficult.

[Pepperbelly]

62. Nope ... more because of our petroeconomy. nt

[msongs]

20. has an al from candidate ever won an election? how many? n/t

[AlamoDemoc]

21. Al From and the DLC can kiss my ass

[donco6]

22. This group is worse than worthless.

Can we get a "cease and desist" order against them for using "Democratic" in their name?

[Iowa]

24. Outrageous...

The DLC will be propping up neocon ideals for years unless they're marginalized within the party. My worthless, puke governor, Tom Visack, is head of the DLC at the moment.

[bassman79]

26. If Dems want to get tough, get tough on the Border

Closing the border is EXTREMELY popular among the Bubbas. The Dems could stand for closing the border and steal Bush's base right out from under him. Of course, they won't though, because they work for the same corporate interests that want the border wide open that Bush does.

[Greyhound]

49. yep n/t

[flaminbats]

55. but we need cheap labor and puppet governments..

who cares about protecting the borders of our global fast food franchise? why educate more engineers and doctors in America if it makes us even more uppity and expensive to pay?

[Vadem]

27. Why do they have Howard Dean's picture next to the article....

as if he is promulgating this DLC bull! When you click on the article, Howard is speaking before a college group having nothing to do with the DLC!

[EFerrari]

29. Exactly. We should call Authorized Propaganda on this bull.

[e-mail]

[Eugene]

31. 100,000 soldiers from where? The draft?

The Army can't recruit enough soldiers
to fill its current quota.

Throwing more manpower at *'s misguided
crusade won't make America safer.
Democrats need to present a credible alternative
to the Republicans, not imitate them.


edited for clarification

[bassman79]

32. The DLC

grab a gun From, your goin in!

[bvar22]

33. Big Surprise.

Al From, PNAC Warmonger and Republican Fascist in a donkey suit wants to EXPAND the Military.

*It is not enough for the Fascisat wing of the Democratic Party that the US already spends MORE THAN THE NEXT 30 Countries COMBINED on the War Machine. They want MORE.

*It is not enough for the Fascisat wing of the Democratic Party that the US already spends OVER $1.4 BILLION Dollars per Day on killing other people! They think we should spend more.

*It is not enough for the Fascisat Wing of the Democratic Party that the crushing burden of our National Debt is forcing the dismantling of our Social Programs and Safety Nets. They want MORE!

*It is not enough for the Fascisat Wing of the Democratic Party that OVER 45Million Americans can't afford HealthCare, they want MORE for the War Machine.

I HATE what the DLC and Corporate Money has spawned in the Democratic Party.
*THEY are responsible for the wedges in the Democratic Party.

*THEY are responsible for the RIGHTWARD Move in the Party.

*THEY are responsible for the dis affectation of 30 MILLION Democrats who don't go to the polls anymore because "Nobody speaks for me "!

*THEY are responsible for well financed, dispassionate, ambiguous, Republican-Lite candidates.

*THEY are responsible for Democrats who vote FOR Bankruptcy Bills and Tort Reform.

*THEY are responsible for ANTI-LABOR Union Busting legislation like NAFTA.

*They are responsible for the epidemic of Corporate De-regulation

*THEY are responsible for an ambiguous Democratic Party Platform that doesn't hold ANY Democrat to ANY Party Policy.

*THEY are responsible for a confusing and ambiguous Party that can't deliver a coordinated message or pitifully few unified votes.

*THEY are responsible for Media Consolidation.

*THEY are responsible branding and ridiculing traditional Democratic Positions as "Looney left" (see Al Fromm & DLC)


Are these "Loony Left" Positions:

*Single Payer HealthCare

*Criminalizing and enforcing bans on Corporate Money and Influence in Government

*STRONG LABOR PROTECTIONS

*Protection for American JOBS (No NAFTAs)

*Restrictions on the SIZE and POWER of Corporations

*Fair Competition laws protecting Mom & Pop businesses from the Wal-Marts

*STRONG EFFECTIVE Environmental Protections

*Caps on Corporate Profits (Record Prices and Record Profits shouldn't happen in Democratic Capitalism) That used to be called "market rigging" or gouging.

*Strong Transparent Governmental Regulation of Transportation, Utilities, Insurance, Energy, Banking, Credit, and Investment.

*Individual Protection from Government Intrusion (No Patriot Acts)

*Affordable (Universal?) Education for EVERYONE

*Living Wages

*Childcare for Working Mothers


WTF is a "3rd Way Democrat"? Why do we need the "New Democrats" and what do THEY stand for? Isn't being a regular old PRO-LABOR Democrat good enough for them?

Are these NEW DEMS some how different from the FDR Democrats who sparked and sustained the GREATEST ECONOMIC EXPANSION the WORLD has ever seen?

[Greyhound]

48. bvar22, you got my vote!

Beautiful summation. Why the fuck the "mainstream" dems can't see/acknowledge this, is why I can only support them as a slightly lesser evil. :kick: :banghead:

[Lorien]

65. Excellent analysis bvar22!

Now the Big Question is; how do we extricate our party from the DLC's clutches?

[bvar22]

78. First,....Exposure.

Like the Republicans, the DLC only represent 10% of the population at best. When enough Democrats realize who they are, and who they represent, the DLC is finished.

I am working on an essay I hope to post to GDPolitics in about a week that will go into more detail. (My above post is part of it.)


Pass it on.

[Burried News]

68. Do you ever get the feeling that some 'supporters' want to make

sure that whatever party wins, they never lose.

Reminds me of a line in "Merchants of Grain" - whether there is an abundance or a shortage, the Merchants of Grain always make a profit.

http://educate-yourself.org/zsl/merchantsofgrain24nov04.shtml
"The Morgans stepped on a lot of expensively shod toes and even though the book was a best seller it appears none were printed after 1980. One of the possibly taboo subjects was the use of grain as a weapon. The merchants withheld shipments of flour to the Belgium Congo and Jamaica in the 1950s. The resulting riots were bloody.

Much attention was put on Henry Kissinger's agreement with the Soviet Union in the early 1970s to purchase grain at bargain prices. A State Department employee was unable to fly from Moscow to the Black Sea resorts on his vacation. He was able to hire a car to make the same trip. As he was from a farming background he knew that the grain crops were in very bad shape. He reported this up his chain of command. The report landed on Kissinger's desk. At the same time Cargil got a report from their former employee in the State Department. Foggy Bottom has a well earned reputation as being leaky. Kissinger kept quiet. Cargil kept quiet.

In mid summer, high ranking party members made a trip to America to buy virtually all the exportable grain from the USA, Canada and Europe. In agreement with Kissinger, the purchases were spread around in such a way as to not drive up the price of grain. The weight of the problem of the failure of the state communes to produce grain fell on the shoulders of the American grain farmer. So much grain was ordered that it put domestic supplies at a premium.

The Muscovites still had their state subsidized two kopeck black bread, but American bread cost thousand times more, at over a dollar a loaf. The American consumer was paying for the failure of the Russian, Ukraine and Belarus crop. The middle men got their profits but the serfs in the fields got little. Kissinger was at the same time winning a Nobel Peace Prize for the Paris Peace Treaty ending the War in Vietnam, where he earlier had recommended the bombing of Hanoi to Nixon. Liar, hypocrite, traitor, thief and mass murderer, Kissinger violated his oath to the Constitution many times over. He may have broken every law that has been written. The Merchants of Grain went along with Kissinger, the most visible member of the NWO."

[Iowa]

80. Bravo for Bvar!

You have nailed it.

Progressives and their organizations (MoveOn and others) should actively oppose DLC candidates. Fund strong progressives in primaries and withhold all support from DLC types in the general election. Weed them out. If they lose they'll fade, and since they are basically Republicans anyway, the loss will be minimal. It could result in some devastating Republican gains in the short term, but it may be our only hope over the long term. The problem is, very few Dems on the street are aware that the DLC even exists, let alone the great difference between real progressives and DLCers. Education is needed.

[Barkley]

34. I will only vote for candidates that want less troops in Iraq!

Even "Freedom Fries" Cong. Jones from North Carolina thinks the war was mistake.

For God's sake, lets get out of Iraq!

I don't need a candidate to be tough. Iraq doesn't belong to the USA!

If Hillary or Kerry win the nomination in '08 I will not vote for any candidate that wants more troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.

No more compromising or "Anybody But ..." strategy.

[bemildred]

35. War Party Dems urge bigger and better foreign adventures. nt

[burrowowl]

36. First Congress should have the GUTS

to Declare War.
So far, war has not been declared.

[Skwmom]

39. They can't meet existing quotas. This doesn't make them look

tough, it makes them look stupid.

[matcom]

41. the DLC can suck my right testicle

cause they aren't worthy to suck my LEFT one :puke:

[Robeson]

44. Lets just give every goddamn tax dollar to the military. What the hell!..

[leesa]

46. Warhawks, not centrists. These people hurt the democratic party.

Fuck the DLC.

[ninkasi]

50. What absolute drivel...

For one thing, invading a country who was never a threat, causing the rest of the world to hate us because we are destroying that country and torturing and murdering their citizens is not a sign of strength, but of brutality.

The only way we can be safe as a nation is by acknowledging that we share this planet with many other people, and that we do not have a right to steal other countries resources. We become strong as a nation when our citizens have access to decent jobs, government provided health care, and responsible environmental laws.

We show strength by showing compassion to the poor and elderly, the weak and the defenseless. What the neocons and spineless DLC choose to call strength is nothing more than brutality, bullying, and barbarity. If this is what the centrist Dems want, then count me as a far, far left, very liberal Democrat, who remembers what our party once stood for.

What America has become is not what I grew up believing our country was supposed to be. I wish we had more Howard Deans, and fewer Joe Liebermans.

[bvar22]

51. Well said. I may have to steal this:

Ninkasi said:

"The only way we can be safe as a nation is by acknowledging that we share this planet with many other people, and that we do not have a right to steal other countries resources. We become strong as a nation when our citizens have access to decent jobs, government provided health care, and responsible environmental laws.

We show strength by showing compassion to the poor and elderly, the weak and the defenseless. What the neocons and spineless DLC choose to call strength is nothing more than brutality, bullying, and barbarity. If this is what the centrist Dems want, then count me as a far, far left, very liberal Democrat, who remembers what our party once stood for."

Thanks!

[ninkasi]

91. Thank you...

I truly appreciate your comments...that's why I love DU so much, most of us here are more interested in doing what's right than seeing who can swagger and boast the most.

[Robeson]

60. Nicley stated...

...and great post. :thumbsup:

[Zorra]

53. So, Al, when are you reporting for duty? n/t

[sintax]

54. He is only saying

what has been commonly practiced by the centrists in the Democratic Party (i.e. Clinton, Kerry, etc.) for years.

Neo-liberal globalizers leaving the children out in the cold.

[MisterP]

103. UNICEF estimated 1 billion in dire and abject poverty today thanks to

neoliberalism and Thatcherite piratization

[yorkiemommie1]

56. sickening

just sickening. with leaders like this, who needs enemies?

[nolabels]

90. They do, why do you think they spend so many resouces............

trying to produce them.

The chicken and the egg debate reaches it's logical conclusion when you want to have a chicken dinner :hide:

[VegasWolf]

57. The DLC reminds me somehow of Gomer Pyle, a day late and a

dollar short. We need leaders with a little vision. We
CAN'T win Iraq, Bush plain and simple fucked up, we NEED to
get out now before more KIDS are killed in this illbegotten war.

[noamnety]

59. Hey! I'm even MORE republican than you!

Vote for MEEEEEEE!

-----------------

Somehow I'm not convinced that's our best strategy.

If you can't afford to feed all your kids, you probably shouldn't be looking to adopt more. We can't afford to take care of the troops we have now.

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

64. A bigger, more effective army isn't necessarily a bad thing.

And certainly, the US Armed Forces could, and should, be much better staffed, equipped, and administrated than it currently is.

The liberal wing of the Dem party (i.e. the ones DUers support) most certainly can play the Soldier Card. To do it right, they need a combination of two messages:

1. We'll build a better equipped, better staffed, and all-around more effective Armed Forces.

2. We won't misuse it.

The first message is easy to get across, though in the current climate, they'd have trouble making good on it.

It's the second one that's important to us. It's something the current administration is completely incapable of doing even if they wanted to, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

As this thread shows, many DUers seem to think that any Democrat who wants to strengthen the military must be a DINO. I think it's because beefing up the Armed Forces has traditionally been a Republican platform. But the fact is, a strong military is something every country should have, especially one with as much power and as many enemies as the United States. It's not a pleasant fact, but it's true, and it will still be true long after America has gone the way of the Byzantines.

Like it or not, America needs a strong, properly managed military. And the Democrats must show the American people that they are capable of producing one, while the present administration is not.

This is not like Kerry's pathetic campaign, where he essentially promised to do everything * was doing, only better. The goal of strengthening the military, in and of itself, is like creating jobs or balancing the budget, in that it's something that has to be done, and it will be expected of whomever winds up in charge. So the proper strategy is to show how you'd do a better job of it than the other guy; hopefully, the Democrats can pull it off. Staying away from the issue is not an option.

[flaminbats]

67. does this mean we'll have to pay for it?

strange..but I don't recall Al From saying anything about bigger taxes. It doesn't matter that China graduates 1000 new engineers for each one in America. As long as more taxes are spent on the military and less on social programs..we're OK!!!!!!!!!!!:eyes:

[Robeson]

73. You took the words right out of my mouth....

...as I said in a post above, lets just give the Pentagon every damn dollar we have. It just benefits me and others sooo much to make the ruling elite richer in this country, while the rest of us struggle to pay bills...

[NNN0LHI]

69. Lets look at the facts here for just a moment

The US already spends more on its military than the rest of the world spends combined.

The US already has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire earth many times over.

And you think enlarging our military isn't necessarily a bad thing.

How do you figure?

When does it stop?

Wouldn't it be better to have a larger and smarter diplomatic service and forget all the bombs and guns for a change?

It didn't make one iota of difference that we had a much larger military during Vietnam the last guerrilla war America was involved in.

We still lost. Just had a lot more casualties. Which proves huge armies are not the answer to everything.

Don

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

70. Well, "better" is more important than "bigger", certainly.

After taking a closer look at the thread, I realize my previous post was out of place, and shouldn't have been made (at least not in this particular context), but the idea behind it is a solid one.

Of course, just hiring more soldiers with no real plan for using them is bad. And yes, From is an idiot. But making a stronger, more effective military isn't necessarily bad, as long as you use it *wisely*... something nobody in either party seems to be suggesting. The Republicans have proven that can't field a truly effective Armed Forces, and the Democrats need to show that they can. I'm not saying From's the one to do that, or that he's doing it right; he isn't. I should have made that clearer. My bad.

Wouldn't it be better to have a larger and smarter diplomatic service and forget all the bombs and guns for a change?

Absolutely. But I don't believe it'll be feasible for a long time, no matter how hard we work at it. And I also believe that, political issues aside, America needs a better military than the one it has. Simply hiring more people isn't enough, and From's going about it all the wrong way, but something has to be done.

[Burried News]

66. Can't we just have apolicy that all candidates for office have a Black

Belt in Kraz Naga.

[reprobate]

71. From LIES! Swing voters in latest polls are now 85-15% for Democrats.

The DLC spews bullshit! Don't believe a word they say. They are no better than the repukes. In fact they are both owned by the same corporations.

The answer is to offer the people of america a choice between the last 4 1/2 years and the prosperity of Clinton and include a national health plan for everyone. That will win elections.

The arrogance of this administration has turned most people against them. Why replace them with their Dem copycats?

[Robeson]

74. Diebold doesn't agree with that poll. They believe in vapor votes.

[dolstein]

75. And yet we still can't win a national election

Sorry, but you're deluding yourself if you think the Democrats can return to power based on the failures of the Bush administration. People may be turning against the Republicans, but they aren't turning to the Democrats. Quite simply, the American public doesn't trust the Democrats to keep them safe, and until that happens, you can forget about your national health plan fantasies.

[dolstein]

72. I agree wholeheartedly -- no more wussy left-wing pacifism

It's pretty obvious that our military is stretched to the point where our national security is being jeopardized. The Democrats should seize this opportunity to return to its traditional of tough-minded "big stick" liberalism. Once upon a time, it was the Democratic Party that wanted to confront totalitarianism with force, while the Republicans wanted to retreat into isolationism. If it weren't for tough-minded liberals like FDR and Harry Trumen, most Europeans would be speaking German today.

Unfortunately, most so-called liberals today take their foreign policy cues from Jane Fonda, not FDR and Truman. That's not liberalism, it's pacifism. Once the flag burners, draft dodgers and their naive apologists took over the party, we were no longer able to command majority support among the American public. Is that a coincidence? I think not.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I think that FDR, Truman and JFK would be pretty disgusted with the "surrender at all costs" menality reflected in many of the posts in this thread. Whatever happened to the party that was willing to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty"? You won't find much evidence of that party around here.

[Burried News]

86. A tough military to defend the Republic Yes, for Empire No.

When you misuse the power to make war you get what you now see. I was an officer and served in VN. I have two family members who are in the service now in combat roles. I do not blanketly oppose war.
But I do oppose this war and I will never support another war that is not declared by Congress after a significant debate by the American People. Much of what you see is not left wing pacifism - it is a cynicism born of lies and fraud. A cynicism that is long overdue.

The survival of liberty is most at risk in the USA and to defend it we don't need more missiles, star wars weaponry and the like. What we need is truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. How many of our 'leaders' are interested in arming us with THAT?

[Robeson]

88. Excellent post, and nicely said....

...and I don't know of any Liberal who wouldn't defend themselves, or this country, if they were provoked into doing so. Most people, Liberal or otherwise, believe in self-defense. Good post.

[greblc]

93. Right on dolstein...

Our Troops need help and nobody is beating down the door to enlist. Bush has shown no leadership in soliciting help from average americans. It's only our Troops and their families that have sacrificed for this war.

[Burried News]

98. And as one of those families my wife and I say - not in our name.

A strong America starts with an honest America.
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - use the next filibuster opportunity to tell it and bring the government to a hault.
Prove how tough we are at the next filibuster.

[MisterP]

106. problem is, the more money the Pentagon gets, the less actual materials

reach the troops: we could give the troops themselves more than everything they needed at half of what we're using.

[Zorra]

95. In rebuttal:

Your seeming comparison of fighting to stop the fascist imperialist assault on the entire world during WWII to the pre-emptive attack on Iraq ordered by a deranged lunatic is ludicrous, for obvious reasons.

The very reason that the military is stretched beyond it's limits is because the war in Iraq is bullshit, everbody knows it, and nobody in their right mind would want to enlist in a military that had a moronic Commander in Chief, known to many as Commander Cuckoobananas, that deliberately lied the nation into a war.

And if I remember correctly, Roosevelt did not enter WWII until AFTER a RW imperialist fascist country, Japan, bombed Pearl Harbor. I am quite sure that Roosevelt would be ashamed of his beloved United States for pre-emptively and unjustifiably attacking a sovereign nation and engaging in a war in which an appointed Commander-in-Chief deliberately lied about a mythical impending attack from a nation that was not in any way an imminent threat or clear and present danger to the United States.

In fact, I am completely positive that he would be horrified.

Basically all those "pacifist liberals" that you deride on this board understand the need for strong defense and a powerful military. You'd have to be a fool not to understand that, and I really have not encountered anyone on this board that is that clueless.

The apparent difference between your seemingly DLC philosophy and the philosophy of most "pacifist liberals" is that you appear to be promoting the use of the military offensively, as a force of ideological or economic coercion to overthrow sovereign nations whose governments and cultures may not believe that the American system of economy and government is the most effective system, while the "pacifist liberals" want to use the military for defense purposes, and only after reasonable diplomatic efforts at resolving potential conflicts are exhausted.

If our government had listened to the "pacifist liberals" prior to the invasion of Iraq, our military would be in great shape right now, strong and fully capable of defending our nation, and people would still be willing to enlist because they would not be worried that the Commander in Chief was going to get them killed in a completely unnecessary war.

It is the republicans and DLC hawks that are fully responsible for weakening our military by approving this war, and not the "pacifist liberals". Because I personally consider Congressman Kucinich to be the antithesis of the DLC in the Democratic Party, I would like to post the quoted passage below to illustrate my point:

U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich
November 2002

Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.
snip---
We must drop the self-defeating policy of regime change. Policies of aggression and assassination are not worthy of any nation with a democratic tradition, let alone a nation of people who love liberty and whose sons and daughters sacrifice to maintain that democracy.

The question is not whether or not America has the military power to destroy Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The question is whether we destroy something essential in this nation by asserting that America has the right to do so anytime it pleases.

America cannot and should not be the world's policeman. America cannot and should not try to pick the leaders of other nations. Nor should America and the American people be pressed into the service of international oil interests and arms dealers.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/11.04D.kucinich.path.htm

And BTW, Democrats didn't lose control of the WH, both Houses of Congress, and the Federal Judiciary until long after the DLC was in firm control of the Democratic Party. Blaming the liberals for this is like republicans screaming that everything that they do wrong is Clinton's fault.


“Democrats moving to the middle is a double disaster that alienates the party's progressive base while simultaneously sending a message to swing voters that the other side is where the good ideas are. It unconsciously locks in the notion that the other side's positions are worth moving toward, while your side's positions are the ones to move away from. Plus every time you move to the center, the right just moves further to the right.” George Lakoff

[bvar22]

101. Wish I could nominate your post for Greatest Page.

Well Written.
My sentiments EXACTLY.

I wholeheartedly agree with the part of Dolstein's Post #72 that the Democratic Party return to the robust Military and Foreign Policies of FDR!!!

*Extremely limited foreign military involvement, exhaust non-military diplomatic alternatives, commit the Military defensively ONLY after Congressional Declaration of War!

*FDR valued the lives of his soldiers and took care not to WASTE them or Abuse them in needless WARS suppressing civilian populations in Foreign Countries

*FDR didn't spread our Military Forces over the globe in over 100 bases in foreign countries.

*FDR didn't loot social programs for military expansion

*FDR made the RICH pay their fair WARTIME Share. 90% top bracket.I fully support raising the Top Bracket to 90% as long as the "War on Terror" lasts!!!

*The FDR Military was "self sufficient" and didn't depend on "private contractors" to provide essential services. We should return to this policy for many reasons, foremost of which is that our War Machine NEEDS to remain FULLY accountable to the public with a CLEARLY DEFINED CHAIN of COMMAND. Nevermore should we tolerate a Sec of Defense saying that the "Chain of Command" was "MURKY". NO PRIVATE CONTRACTORS in our WAR MACHINE.

*Maintain only a frugal "skeleton military" during Peacetime. If we maintain a bloated Expensive Military Force, they will find a war.

*Under FDR, the US was "self sufficient" Maintaining a viable base of Heavy Industry, Manufacturing, Tool and Die, Fabrication, Textiles, Alloys, rubber,food, and the skilled LABOR to operate and quickly expand these industries is absolutely essential to our National Security!!! Those who support exporting these Jobs and Industries are weakening the US.


*MOST IMPORTANTLY, FDR believed that those who "risked all" should be treated as Heroes, not Slaves. The Democratic party need to take the LEAD in DEMANDING excellent benefits for our Veterans and their families, and Social Programs of 1st Class Housing Loans, School Tuition, and 1st Class HealthCare for LIFE. (not the crap offered today)

*Under FDR, our Military received the BEST weaponry and armor available

*Under FDR, our Military KNEW their lives wouldn't be wasted in STUPID WORTHLESS Wars.


Repeat for emphasis:
Under FDR, the RICH paid their FAIR SHARE.
The TOP BRACKET was 90%.
Raise the Top Bracket to 90% as long as the War on Terror lasts!!! (and then see how fast the so called "War on Terror" screeches to a halt!)


I didn't realize that Dolstein was a radical Leftist.

[dolstein]

105. Please get your facts straight

You seem to suggest that FDR was somehow dragged reluctanctly into WWII by the bombing of Pearl Harbor is way off the mark. The truth is that FDR did everything he could to prod a habitually isolationist country towards war. And some of his actions, including an oil embargoe against Japan, practically invited an attack on the United States. FDR insticts were most definitely hawkish.

And in case you missed it, the quote in my original post was from JFK's inauguration speech -- delivered in 1961, long after WWII ended. JFK wasn't a shrinking violet when it came to military force. He ran to the right of Nixon on foreign policy in the 1960 election, and he escalated U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Vietnam may have been LBJ's wars, but it was planned by JFK appointees.

[anitar1]

107. Thank you for being a true student of history.

I am amazed when I read some posts. Many are totally unaware of what really happened leading up to WW11. I am an admirer of FDR, but he was not the angel that some make him out to be. He was a master politician. But he had a heart and clear vision when it came to the people of this country. Watching the miserable DLC makes me want to change affiliations to Independant , but then I could not vote in the primaries. So I will continue to be registered as a Democrat but my heart is not in it. I am fed up with the Dems. They are not my party anymore.They do not represent the people.I will not vote for anyone they put forward.

[Zorra]

110. Um, sorry, FDR was no hawk. And I do have my facts very straight.

I posted that FDR did not enter the war until after the US was attacked. That is, apparently, a historical fact. FDR never pre-emptively invaded another country. He had no choice but to enter the war.

And JFK made one of the worst decisions in American history by involving us in Vietnam. There is a big wall in Washington DC that has 58,000 names on it that proves it.

And, BTW, FDR really hated war. He really did. As a matter of fact, he even said so himself.

"I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded. I have seen men coughing out their gassed lungs. I have seen the dead in the mud. I have seen cities destroyed. I have seen 200 limping, exhausted men come out of line—the survivors of a regiment of 1,000 that went forward 48 hours before. I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war. FDR, Chautaqua, 1936.

"More than an end to war, we want an end to the beginning of all wars -yes, an end to this brutal, inhuman and thoroughly impractical method of settling the differences between governments".
Franklin D. Roosevelt

"I want to kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill!"
Arlo Guthrie, "Alice's Restaurant".

"Will Marshall is a bloodthirsty, warmongering fascist" - Zorra

[eridani]

96. WTF does having military bases all over the goddam world--

--have to do with defending this country? We had no such world-wide presence before WW II, and that did not stop us from beating Hitler.

Switzerland bases its army on an armed citizenry, and is probably closest to what the founding fathers had in mind. A world full of Switzerlands means nobody has to take any crap, but nobody is in a position for imperial conquest either.

All you "tough" guys are just silly fluffy pink bunnies studiously ignoring the primary strategic reality of the 21st century, which is that domination is extremely expensive and FSU is cheap.

[greblc]

99. This fluffy bunny loves Armchair Generals.

When are you joining the battle hardend Swiss Army? I hear they have great knives.

[eridani]

104. They have a very modern airforce--

--and citizen soldiers who are trained in high tech weaponry. They are way better equipped than our troups--but then on the other hand they don't have to worry about their transport armor as much if they aren't into invading other countries.

[genieroze]

76. Hey a-hole Dem's, set an example, send YOUR kids to die or

shaddup.

[dolstein]

77. I favor a draft for precisely these reasons

It's too easy for wealthier people to escape military service.

[bassman79]

79. You sucker...

That's the biggest scam ever. Rich kids will always get out of the draft, they always have, every draft in history. Rangel and co. just use this line, the lamest ever, as a way to push a draft and seem liberal about it.

[dolstein]

81. I can think of a few six letter words for you too

It certainly doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you have a draft, you can't allow college deferments. The draft seemed to work ok in WWI and WWII.

Besides, everyone knows that the biggest scam is when pacifists try to justify their opposition to war on the grounds that the poor end up bearing the biggest burden, but then oppose any effort to spread the burden more evenly.

[bassman79]

82. I think most pacifists justify their opposition on the grounds

that the war is simply a profit-making enterprise by a bunch of death merchants which destroy every life it come in contact with. I don't want anyone fed into that meat grinder, rich or poor.

[flaminbats]

85. they do???

then who justifies support for this profit-making enterprise by a bunch of death merchants which destroys every life it comes in contact with?

[bassman79]

92. Those who are sharing in the profits

[flaminbats]

94. don't forget who backed Saddam to begin with..

it makes me sick that a traitor who helped sell weapons to this thug in the eighties is now our Defense Secretary. Why did we give money to al Qaeda during the cold war?

I think most taxpayers are sick of a government which creates problems instead of solving them..pacifism and fantasy have little to do with it!

[bassman79]

100. Build up boogeymen to later destroy them

It's intentional.

[flaminbats]

102. OK..so how does this justify the war in Iraq?

It seems to me that the politicians must justify this war! All citizens have a responsibility to demand the facts and positive results from any government which can tax us and enforces the law.

[anitar1]

108. I sure as hell do not want my grandchildren to die in this

shithole war. Why should I support a draft? Name me one good reason. I think those who promote this should be willing to scarifice their own for this fiasco. I am not willing to. My grandkids will NOT die for Bushit!

[Burried News]

87. I support a draft as well.

So that when we vote for war everyone has a vested interest. Furthermore a professional military is incompatible with a Republic. On an active thread someone mentioned that a coup might not be a bad thing - this is a terrible thing to count on when the machinery of government goes awry (as I believe it now has). A military with a large 'civilian' component makes coup's less likely (and if tried less likely to succeed).

[anitar1]

109. Do you have children or grandchildren who should

serve in this illegal war? Are you so willing to send them there? Or, are you young, and willing to lay your life on the line for Bush? I do not understand people who think as you do.

[Chicago Democrat]

83. FU DLC!

assholes, useless, worthless, quisling, sellouts!

[Chicago Democrat]

84. "Enlargement" purposefully phallic word devoid of all real meaning

Real Meaning: We plan to lie and decieve your animalistic children to commit war crimes and act like its a big game.

[Solly Mack]

111. The problem isn't "not enough soldiers" the problem is "ILLEGAL Wars"

based on "LIES"... and using "FEAR AS CONTROL"

But hey, let's not address the real problem.