New GOP Meme: Please, DON'T Fall for THIS One!!!

[Sparkly]

There's a new meme in the media lately -- one I suggest we watch out for. It goes something like this (a summary paraphase):

"Democrats, in an effort to garner votes since they're such losers, are suddenly talking about being strong on national security. They seem to be coming around to acknowledging the need for the threat of military action.

The Democratic party carries a lot of baggage since Vietnam, and is conflicted about the military and war. Despite its confusion, the party realizes it needs to appeal to voters who care about national security.

So now, Democrats seek a stance that makes them look comfortable and strong on issues of defense, more like Republicans. It's a shift from their former opposition to the Iraq war.


***********

Recognize any such article or editorial for what it is: BULLSHIT.

Democrats have fought, bled and died in our military; they've protested the Vietnam war (and now the Iraq war) even after fighting, bleeding, and losing comrades. Informed understanding of our military is not a sudden change or pretense in our party's position.

Democrats have used the THREAT of military action in order to avoid invasion and war, as one tool along with diplomatic persuasion, economic carrots and sticks, and legal action. Effective use of military threat is not a sudden change or pretense in our party's position.

Democrats have worked effectively for peace and human rights around the world, despite Republican opposition. Democrats proposed the Department of Homeland Security; the 1996 Gore Commission proposed airline security measures; Clinton's counter-terrorism efforts were strong, and strongly ignored by the Bush administration the moment it took office. Emphasis on global peace and national security is not a sudden change or pretense in our party's position.

Democrats including George McGovern, Wesley Clark, John Kerry and Max Cleland risked their lives in combat for this country; the leaders in the current administration didn't. Sacrifice, duty, and commitment to national security are not a sudden change or pretense in our party's position.

Don't let their newest line fool you. Don't criticize Democrats as being "Repug-lite" in standing for smart, effective, courageous defense of our country. These issues are NOT the monopoly of the current Republican party -- they only talk the talk; our party has walked the walk. They want to claim the flag, the troops, and national security itself as THEIR issue. Don't let them do it! Intelligence, courage, and patriorism are not a sudden change or pretense in our party's position.

They'll hold up Reagan's spending on defense as evidence that the GOP is "strong." Even IF people thought Star Wars made sense then, it doesn't now, and combined with tax cuts that were supposed to "trickle down" all we got was a debt that's been stifling our economy ever since. Democrats fought for funding of counter-terrorism, and stand for balanced budgets, and continue to fight Republicans for adequate equipment for active duty and benefits for veterans. Support for our troops and sound military spending is not a sudden change or pretense in our party's position.

They'll hold up Democrats' votes for the IWR as support for BushCo's misuse of it, and then hold up other Democrats' stands against the Iraq war as inconsistent with statements of strength on national defense. Support for effective national defense, while opposing BushCo's invasion of Iraq, is not a sudden change or pretense OR inconsistency in our party's position.

Don't be fooled! Don't let them get away with this new meme! Most of all, don't let them divide US with this, pretending this is a matter of Repug-lite vs. True-Dem. It ISN'T. We can debate policy among ourselves just fine, but what I've outlined here is a phony, lie-filled, propagandist WEDGE designed to continue their 30-yr campaign to portray Democrats as "weak," and now to divide us within the party, imho.

Don't LET them do this!!! The things they cite as "new" and phony within our party are neither new nor phony.

OURS is the party that stands up when it matters -- don't let them persuade you that these things represent a change or pretense in our party's position!!

[blue sky at night]

1. Damn Straight.....

copy and paste this sucker all over creation. This is what it is all about in the upcoming battles that we MUST win. Consider it done and nominated right now. Thanks.

[Sparkly]

4. Thanks, blue!

:hi:

[guruoo]

70. Ohhh noooo the mimes....

http://www.transbuddha.com/mediaHolder.php?id=721

[still_one]

2. one thing I won't and can't agree with though

there are democrats who are repug-lite. This has nothing to do with the repugs or neoconservatves. There were enough Democrats who knew we should NOT give * the authority to go into Iraq i.e.

feingold, boxer, kucinich, byrd, dean, clark, and others

The repukes and democrats who gave bush the authority to go into Iraq, NOT only violated the war powers act, but violated the constitution for what they thought was political expediency, and I for one cannot, and will NOT support that.

There are enough Democrats that speak truth to power, but I have no patience for those who are looking for the path of least resistance

[Sparkly]

3. They made a huge mistake.

I'll grant you that. And I wish they'd say it, too.

But don't let Repugs USE that to divide us now. That's what I'm saying. Those votes do not mean that those senators are disingenuous in now opposing what BushCo has done in Iraq, every step of the way.

Their game of "gotcha" is all part of this larger scheme to portray Democrats as confused, conflicted, weak, etc.

[still_one]

5. they are not dividing ME, those democrats did

and they believe it was NOT a mistake.

It was the BIGGEST MISTAKE this country has EVER MADE

In fact biden would like to reinstate the draft along with mccain

I respect your convictions and your choice, but I refuse to be manipulated by them anymore. There are enough Democrats to fill the shoes of what are party stands for

[Sparkly]

8. Those Democrats are damned sorry, imho.

But they don't have the courage to come out and say so. They're so afraid of being called "flip-floppers."

And they voted for the IWR because they were so afraid of being called "weak" after 9/11.

Absolutely -- the invasion of Iraq was the WORST mistake our country ever made, I'm with you there.

The Democrats who voted for the IWR can only say, "I voted for the president to have the authority to go to the UN with the full support of Congress, giving teeth to the threat that we could use military force." They can only say, "I trusted him to use that support wisely."

I defended John Kerry for a long, long time about that. But it is what it is. At best, it was misplaced trust. At worst, it was a political calculation at one moment that backfired later on.

Don't conflate that with this new, larger meme against our party. Don't let one day's votes from one year's Senators play into propaganda against ALL non-Republicans over 30 years and on into the future.

[still_one]

11. I voted for Kerry also

but this election, and what the kissing ass the democrats have been doing since 2000, have taught me that I will NOT drink that kool aide

look at the election in OHIO? WE HAD A CANDIDATE who called bush and those that caused this war "chicken hawks". Limbaugh is fat ass drug addict. No words were minced parsed or nuanced. That is the only way the democrats will stand a chance to win. They MUST speak truth to power, and if they don't want to, then get off the train, because that is what the people want

[Sparkly]

23. I agree. And that means staking some ground and saying, "FU, this is OURS"

On national defense, terrorism, security, the military, and the flag: "DO NOT TRESPASS. WE claim the ground we've fought and bled for."

Don't let them take that from us. Don't let them claim that as "theirs" alone.

[karynnj]

46. Do you really think that even if the Senate defeated the IWR

there would be no war? Bush already had troops poised to attack. The whole point of the Part II of the WMD investigation and the DSM is that the intelligence was played with by Bush and Blair to justify an attack.

The Democratic Senators (who would under this scenario have defeated the IWR) were the loudest voices demanding Bush go to the UN and try to get inspectors back in. Powell's best argument was that they would undercut the President in the UN if they voted against him. Bush would likely have bypassed the UN and gone in (through some trumped up intelligence reason)4 to 5 months earlier. He would then have blamed the Democrats as having weakened his diplomatic leverage and thus making it impossible for him to avoid war.

I think the IWR was a difficult vote when it was made. I honestly can not believe that it was a political calculation on Kerry's part. By the accounts of all that know him, he very genuinely saw getting inspectors in as the only way to possibly prevent war. In truth, with Bush in power with overwhelming approval ratings - there may have been no way to avoid war. After the IWR, when the inspectors were in and were getting some cooperation, Kerry was a leading voice against going to war - well before Trippi positioned Dean to the left of Kerry.

[Stinky The Clown]

55. I think your list overextends ........

Neither dean no Clark were in any position to give idiot son any authority .... neither was an elected anything at the time of the vote. Both men are on record against the vote.

But I get your point and mostly agree with it.

[blondeatlast]

69. Agreed, but that doesn't excuse OUR letting the RW define OUR message

in THEIR terms, which is indirectly what Sparkly is talking about.

[DemInDistress]

6. sniff...sniff...sniff

I smell Karl Rove the Traitor

[Sparkly]

10. So do I.

NO doubt about it. All of a sudden, there are so many "original" thoughts that carry the very same phrases and opinions.

Funny how that works.

I'm telling you, this one's more subtle than the usual blast-faxes, but it's there.

[still_one]

13. the solution is simple

put in democrats that speak truth to power

[Sparkly]

14. Oh YEAH.

Absolutely.

No strings, no conflicts, no sell-outs, no deals, no compromises, no lobbies... Those are the ones we need. (Mind you, if they're that free, it means they haven't gone to "President School.")

Meanwhile, the Democrats we have need to SPEAK UP for the tradition of our party, and that tradition includes SMART use of real strength.

[still_one]

16. that we definitely agree on

[madfloridian]

7. Actually there were some threads here last night...

About the DLC, Third Way, and how they were making national security their main issue. The Third Way is a global group, and it is also the one that includes the Clintons and the DLC.

I think they are going to do this, make national security an issue.

If you can't find the threads, I will search in the morning. Some were here this afternoon.

[still_one]

9. remember the Ohio election that just place?

we had a candidate who called it what it was. bush and his associates were chicken hawks. That will be the secret to any win, not backing away from such statements, but speaking truth to power.

How many Democrats in Congress do you see back Cindy Sheehan, and how many do you see silent

How many Democrats during the Shivo fiasco were present, and how many were silent

How many Democrats in Congress were against the bankrupcy bill, and how many were silent

[Sparkly]

12. Thanks, mf

I've been away for a few days. But I did hear, prior to that, that Dean was meeting with people about issues of national security and our party's stance.

I think what they're doing, though, is less about "changing" positions, and more about reclaiming what's rightly been our stand all along, counter to the GOP propaganda.

It's all about getting the truth out there -- and Dr. Dean is GREAT at that! I hope they're catching on to this latest meme.

[madfloridian]

15. I will find the link for you.

This is the group that voted for the war, like Hillary and Lieberman, the DLC ones.

I am sure Dean works with all of them, but they decided to have their own convention recently and set up their own agenda.

Hillary is one of the officers, and an integral part of the Third Way. Bayh, Carper, more.

I will find the threads. One of their pages is called "Boots on the Ground", and it is rebuild the military.

Don't get me wrong, we need a strong military. I just have bad feelings about the rightward pull.

[still_one]

18. this "third way" worries me

It smalls a lot like PNAC, and that is why we are in the situation we are in today

[Sparkly]

26. Dividing our party into camps...

Let's not.

I'm talking about fighting the GOP meme that Democrats are weak, confused, conflicted, divided, or otherwise wishy-washy when it comes to national defense.

I don't care WHAT way you choose -- first, second, third, or fifteenth -- there is NO part of the Democratic party that is WEAK on national defense. None. Period.

Don't let them get ANY traction with this.

[madfloridian]

17. Ok, here they are.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2007715

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2007203

They were pretty interesting discussions. I learned a lot about the Third Way that concerned me. For our Democrats to use that term, especially with the Clintons involved bothers me.

There are good links in those posts. Will take you a while to go through them.

[Sparkly]

20. Again.. Separate MISUSE of the military from having a significant military

I'm seeing discussion about the USES of the military -- first way, second way, third way.

I'm saying, there is NO way Democrats have EVER dissed the military, nor been "weak" on national defense.

Don't let Republicans confuse that fact.

[Adelante]

40. "make national security an issue"

National security is an issue. It's the issue we lost on in 2004. It's the issue we're going to lose on in 2006, if we don't reclaim it. It's one of very, very few issues the voting public does not trust Democrats to deliver on, because they've been duped into believing we can't deliver on it. Let's not collaborate with our enemies. Security, Defense, Foreign Policy -- we are better at it. It's ours - don't give it away.

[skids]

19. Well, it is kinda hard to do...

...with the "anti-war" meme going so strong here that the message conveyed is that Dems oppose, absolutely and without exception, every single act of war or military intervention that ever was, is now, or will ever be considered.

Usually I don't express opinions that war (or preferrably less severe forms of military force) can be used for the better, because I know I'll get jumped on. But since you bring it up:

I never really hated the idea of toppling Saddam with military force, in principle. In fact, there are several other dictators that could use a bullet to the brainpan and the world would be for the better (too bad our military is stretched so thin.)

What I hated was the fact that almost every single thing Bushco could have done right in the process, they did wrong. About the only thing that went right was the performance of our military during the initial invasion, and that only because the capability of the military is not in Bushco's scope, so about all they could do to screw it up was undersupply the troops -- which they of course did -- but that didn't impact the invasion itself, AFAIK.

And I saw it coming, too. Because Bushco had screwed up everything they had touched from the start of their administration. And they were short-changing operations in Afghanistan to go after Saddam and rushing things most irresponsibly. When the war was announced, my housemate said to me: "I'm conflicted, Saddam is a pretty evil dictator, and I'd really like to see him go down, but it's a pity to see Bush II get to be the one to do it and thus claim credit for it. Plus war is always a horrible thing."

My reply was -- "well, I don't think you need to be conflicted, because you know based on their past performance they will screw this up mightily and it will be an unmitigated disaster." I made several other predictions that night that came true, all based on the simple premise that Bushco didn't know what the hell they were doing, with the corroborating fact that there was a completely deficient budget for humanitarian followup. But I'm way off on a tangent now, so to get back on point...

I respect the "pro-peace"/"anti-war" movement but am not one of them because though I may oppose the Iraq war, and I oppose any war that isn't preceded by an honest and thorough attempt at peace using all available time to find a nonviolent solution, I don't oppose all war in general. Sometimes you have to go in and crush someone because they are dead set on crushing others and it saves more lives to do so.

To me the point is not "no war!" but "no bungled wars!"

This is not a popular opinion to voice in a room full of progressives, (IMO, based on my currently available samples of progressives.) Is it any wonder why the repugs have correctly identified it as a weak point in Dem armor?

[Sparkly]

21. Thanks for that thoughtful post!

That's what I'm trying to boil it all down to: "Anti-STUPID-war" does not equal "Anti-DEFENSE." Nor does it equal Anti-Anything that could effect greater peace, and a strong military is useful for threatening tyrants to stop abusing people.

Yes, so many of us knew that Saddam was WAY down on this list of "threats," and that BushCo's way of deposing him was bungled right from the start. Now we're seeing the very chaos we all predicted, in the face of rightwing rosy-glassed optimism.

What I'm saying is... That doesn't mean Democrats are, or ever were, WEAK on DEFENSE. It doesn't mean we don't support the military. It doesn't mean we aren't patriotic, tough, or courageous. But that's how they're using this:

If Democrats DID vote for the IWR yet oppose how Chimpy misused it, they're weak, confused flip-floppers, and anything they say now is mere political posturing.

If Democrats DIDN'T want the war yet claim they're concerned about national security and terrorism, they're weak, confused flip-floppers, and anything they say now is mere political posturing.

Don't LET them do this!!!

[oscar111]

22. One-sentence retort to the meme wanted. Anyone?

in debate, the OP would not work. Too long.

anyone have a snappy reply to this new meme of the RW?
ONe or two sentences.

my effort:
"iraq is not national defense, since we were not attacked by iraq. Getting Osama is the national defense, which bush has failed to do."

[skids]

24. Well, since they cannot resist bringing up Iraq:

"It's funny that you should bring up the Iraq war, which has weakened this country's defensive and offensive capabilities."

And I know you said one sentence, but a follower:

"No wonder those of us that expected this incompetant administration to mismanage this endeavor (with dire consequences) opposed it -- we only regret that not all of our party could see the administration for the cronic bunglers that they are."

[skids]

35. Or wait... I think I've got the best one...

This from the party that cried "Clinton is wagging the dog" and then fomented about a sex act while people were being massacred -- Republicans don't have a leg to stand on in this department.

[Sparkly]

25. There's a one-sentence reply to any part of it.

Yours applies to the misuse of the military in invading Iraq rather than completing the job in Afghanistan.

The issue is larger and more multi-faceted, though. Other one-sentence replies might include:

"Your party only talks the talk, mine walks the walk."

"Stupidity isn't strength."

"Nobody volunteered to be a poker chip for Bush."

"Clark, Cleland, and Kerry are scarred from combat; Bush and Cheney made sure they never got a scratch."

[still_one]

27. Only one miltary operation was justified, and that was Afganistan

because the Taliban was protecting bin laden, but not only did they screw that up, but they started an additional war that not only cannot be won, but will end up a Shiite theocracy

[skids]

32. Yeah... I was holding out hope at first...

...that Afghanistan would be such an easy job that even they couldn't screw it up.

But then the newscaster crowed about how they were dropping humanitarian aid from aircraft pre-war. Then they gave a number. I forget what it was, but a little math showed that the number of meals they airdropped was utterly insignifigant compared to the population.

http://www.usafe.af.mil/airdrop/faqs.htm
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/cra0283.htm

It was at that point I knew, yeah, they are going to screw this up.

Now they have farmers going back to producing opium because they didn't end up getting the tractors that would have helped them (re)build a subsistance farming base.

IMO, external military offensive regime change should be prohibited by international law even with U.N. approval unless at minimum as much money is set aside for recnstruction as is spent on military incursion.

[still_one]

33. as the federation in star trek would say

remember the prime directive

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

43. I don't think you're in the minority...

George McGovern (the proto-typical dove) was a bomber pilot in World War II -- there's a vast difference between wars of national defense and wars of agressive imperialism. Between using war as a last resort when all peaceful alternatives have been ruled out, and using was a tool for political and economic gain.

You don't have to be a dove to be opposed to Iraq.

[Nothing Without Hope]

28. Yes. For example, look at this "news" article in the Boston Globe:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2008393
thread title: Democrats embrace tough military stance

This one wasn't even published as an opinion piece, but as factual "news." Several out-of-context quotes from Clinton, Biden and Bayh and a couple of other random bits and pieces were somehow translated into a sweeping conclusion that was expressed in the title of the article and in this jaw-dropping sentence:

Even Democrats who have been associated with liberal positions on international affairs are calling for more troops in uniform, proposing that threats of force be used to stop nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea, and pressing for potential military intervention to ease famine and oppression around the world.

This is pure pro-GOP propaganda, trying to push off responsibility for the unpopular Iraq war by saying that the Dems support the same things. And claiming that the Dems -- and this is stated as if they are a monolithic force except for a few "liberal groups" - want to threaten force to stop nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea. In other words, it's trying to say that the Dems are just as scary and wrongheaded as the Rethugs.

Don't buy it. Some Dems doubtless are saying things like this. But that does not translate into it being the stance of the entire party as the article states.

It would be good to see some well-written letters to the editor that point out how egregious this pseudo-news article really is. Shame on them. And MA is a blue state -and the Globe is the less GOP-leaning of the two main Boston papers!

[Sparkly]

29. Perfect Example -- exactly what I'm talking about.

This is one of many.

Look at the title alone: "Democrats embrace tough military stance." As IF we never did before, and as IF that stance means embracing BushCo's policies.

BEWARE of this!!

[Nothing Without Hope]

30. Equally disturbing was the response of some DUers to that article -

there was anger at the party and all too much readiness to accept the stated - and baseless - conclusion of the article as fact.

Nice way to splinter the Democratic party and get people to believe that there's no difference from the GOP. And it was not even an op/ed piece - it was printed as NEWS!

Would the same people have accepted it as true if they had seen a TV talking head say it? I doubt it.

[Sparkly]

31. Excellent points, NWH

"Would the same people have accepted it as true if they had seen a TV talking head say it?"

Very interesting! Perhaps it's true that we see the despised talking heads spouting the GOP memes and cry "BS!" Yet in reading criticism of the party in print, it's easy to nod and accept the explanation of our "PROBLEM."

I'm right with you.

[dave29]

34. simple response

rather than go on the defensive - go on offense:

1) If Republicans were strong on National Defense, 9/11 would never have happened.

2) If Republicans were strong on National Defense, they would actually consider planning out their pre-emptive wars, based on sound strategy of career military officials rather than the random musings of overpaid ideologues that have been continuously proven wrong.

3) If Republicans were strong on National Defense, they would act rationally when confronted with a problem - and have a foreign policy built on humility and strong coalitions rather than taking our sons and daughters into battles they don't even have the body armor to protect themselves with.

4) If Republicans were strong on National Defense, they could level with the American people about the reality of the mess they have gotten us into, and reverse course, rather than brazenly pursuing a reckless agenda that is doing nothing other than making the world far less stable.Not to mention costing our country dearly in blood and treasure.

5) Republican National Defense strategy has been a miserable failure for America.

6) Democrats believe the strongest foreign policy is that which is based on sound intelligence, has the full support of our allies, and will not cause long term harm to our country, or needlessly jeopardize the lives of our citizens.

7) Democrats believe the strongest National Defense is one that is prepared to handle situations smartly, quickly, effectively, with the full support of the global community, and only when exhaustive attempts at avoiding the conflict have failed.

In the modern world as we strive to become more of an interconnected global community, arrogance is not an option. This has been the worst failure of the Bush Administration. The harm they have done through arrogance alone is incalculable

[Nothing Without Hope]

36. Yes. Their "national defense" has resulted in WORSE vulnerability, and at

the price of thousands of lives lost, children and adults maimed and homeless, lives destroyed. And of course the bankruptcy and the current hatred and distrust of the US around the world, not just in the designated "enemies" but also in our longtime friends.

[Adelante]

39. Exactly right, Dave29

We're not Repub-lite - we're what they SHOULD be and are not. Democrats are better on national security and defense. We should say so and say so, show them up for their failures every which way.

[FizzFuzz]

37. THIS is the argument that Dems need to take by the horns.

I think Cindy shows them they can grow a spine now.

[auburngrad82]

38. History's on our side on this

WWI, WWII and Korea were during Democratic president's terms. Vietnam, which was a huge mistake, was started by a Dem and finished (badly) by a Repug.

Why don't we just make sure "chickenhawk" is used as much as possible when talking about these assholes? With very few exceptions, the warmongers on the Right are all without military service.

[CWebster]

41. But we do fall for it when we acknowledge militarism

as such a priority.

I think it is gross that it is what we pander to, in fact it was the one issue I had with Dean - jumping aboard the look tough bandwagon.

We just demonstrated our big tough act and look what a mess we made. Yeah, the world, with the exception of Israel, really admires us rampaging over the landscape with our big brutal club, leaving devastation in our wake.

Yeah, it has made us so much safer and secure.

[Adelante]

44. Being Tough

It's a whole lot tougher to negotiate diplomacy to avert war than it is to engage in preemptive war. That's what the Democratic agenda is about, but you do need a strong military to be effective at it. It's not militarism, it's the force behind a sane foreign policy. It's what we do better than Republicans do. I make exceptions only for defense and to oppose genocide in global concert, but I know not everybody here agrees with that. It's not about "looking tough" - it's about being tough in a real and honorable way. I think that's how Dean looks at it. I don't think he's jumping on any badwagon, because I think this is what he has always said.

[CWebster]

47. I don't think so

What happens is when the rest of the world sees the US swinging its dick around, it arms itself to the teeth in defense--since like most bullies, the US only picks a fight when it knows it has a weakened and vulnerable opponent.

Being viewed as the world's Imperial military bully is no sane foreign policy if it causes arms buildup--BUT it may be good for the economy IF the foundation is arms dealers and the politicians who accept their bribes or sit on their boards.

[Adelante]

50. "the world's Imperial military bully"

Agreed, that is no sane foreign policy and it's not the Democratic foreign policy. It's the Republican foreign policy.

I do think arms buildups would happen with us or without us, although it's been mainly with us, but power politics is what it is and no country's immune. It would be nice to think, without the USA, the world would somehow be a peaceful and cooperative place, but it is not what history shows us. We have to keep trying for global agreements, but if we don't win elections, we can't do that, and we can't move our domestic agenda forward, either.

That's the bottom line. If the nation trusts us already on domestic issues, which they do, but does not trust us on security issues, and votes against us based on this inability to believe in us on security and defense, yet it is not TRUE, it's our job to tell our national security and foreign policy story.

That doesn't mean we are wanting to be like Republicans, it makes us NOT Republicans.

[CWebster]

51. Sorry, but more often than not

our military interventions have been for less than honorable reasons.

But, it is essential to sell the nobility and honor of war and military service as the ultimate expression of patriotism--otherwise it would be too much of an effort to rally the troops.

This Invasion, in essense was a war crime, claiming to do a better job of it is not a winning formula while ignoring the failure.

[Adelante]

53. Absolutely, don't ignore the failure

I want the Dems to shout it out loud every day.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

42. Sing it, Sister!!

Lest we forget, Jimmy Carter also served in the Navy and, as of last week, has a Seawolf-class attack submarine named after him.

Top that, Mr. I-Almost-Served-In-The-Texas-Air-National-Guard!

[CBHagman]

45. Republicans get undeserved credit for competence.

They talk about fiscal conservatism but run up the debt every time enough people are stupid enough to vote for a GOP presidential candidate.

They get credit for a supposedly mature foreign policy but leave decades worth of wreckage for others to clean up. Cheney even had the cheek to bring up the Reagan El Salvador meme, conveniently ignoring the fact that that particular nation went through a civil war that didn't end until well into the '90s -- long after Reagan's claims about the elections.

The Bush administration gets what it wants, but it doesn't succeed. We'll be stuck cleaning up after it, too.

[IndianaGreen]

48. Democrats gave us the Vietnam War

Sorry, but your history is not correct!

Wayne Morse was the Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold of the Vietnam era, being one of the few members in Congress to vote against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution that Democratic President Johnson wanted as badly as Bush wanted his IWR.

When Gene McCarthy decided to challenge the war by running against President Johnson, the entire Democratic establishment turned against him.

The same Democratic establishment made sure that the 1968 Democratic nomination ended in the hands of a prowar war criminal named Hubert Humphrey, a man that as Johnson's Vice president had referred to Vietnam as our country's "greatest adventure."

[kentuck]

49. Republicans have no credibility on national security...

Look what has happened ot our country and our military with them in charge. It has been a disaster! Should we believe them or our own lying eyes?

[JayWyss]

52. A Most Interesting List

This is my first post on this site, probably my last too since I simply prefer to lurk; but here's an interesitng list of current politicans/ pundits and assholes who have and have not served in the military thanks to a LetsRun.com poster (The Internet Cesspool of Track & Field).

Democrats
Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as
an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor,
Vietnam. . Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-'47; Medal of Honor,
WWII. . John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze
Star with Combat V Purple Hearts.
John Edwards: did not serve.
Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star,
Korea. . Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star &
Bronze Star, Vietnam. . Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-1953.
Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve
1979-91. . Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII, receiving
the Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs,
Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver
Star and Legion of Merit.
Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple
Heart. . Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine
in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
Chuck Robb: Vietnam
Howell Heflin: Silver Star
George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered
draft but received 311.
Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18
Clusters. . Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in
WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.
Wesley Clark: U.S. Army, 1966-2000, West Point, Vietnam,
Purple Heart, Silver Star. Retired 4-star general.
John Dingell: WWII vet
John Conyers: Army 1950-57, Korea

Republicans
Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
Tom Delay: did not serve.House Whiip Roy Blunt: did not serve.
Bill Frist: did not serve.
Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
George Pataki: did not serve.
Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
Rick Santorum: did not serve.
Trent Lott: did not serve.
Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by
marriage. . John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments
to teach business. . Jeb Bush: did not serve.
Karl Rove: did not serve.
Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who
attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
Vin Weber: did not serve.
Richard Perle: did not serve.
Douglas Feith: did not serve.
Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
Richard Shelby: did not serve.
Jon Kyl: did not serve.
Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
Christopher Cox: did not serve.
Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as aviator and
flight instructor. . George W. Bush: six-year Nat'l Guard
commitment (in four). . Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight,
served in a non-combat role making movies.
Gerald Ford: Navy, WWII
Phil Gramm: did not serve.
John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit,
Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
Bob Dole: an honorable veteran.
Chuck Hagel: two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, Vietnam.
Duke Cunningham: nominated for Medal of Honor, Navy Cross,
Silver Stars, Air Medals, Purple Hearts.
Jeff Sessions: Army Reserves, 1973-1986
JC Watts: did not serve.
Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
G.H.W. Bush: Pilot in WWII. Shot down by the Japanese.
Tom Ridge: Bronze Star for Valor in Vietnam.
Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
Clarence Thomas: did not serve

Pundits & Preachers
Sean Hannity: did not serve.
Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal
cyst.').
Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
Michael Savage: did not serve.
George Will: did not serve.
Chris Matthews: did not serve.
Paul Gigot: did not serve.
Bill Bennett: did not serve.
Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
Bill Kristol: did not serve.
Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
Michael Medved: did not serve.

Anyone else notice that all the people many of us can't stand all have those 3 familiar words (Did, not, and serve) right next to their names?! Glorious.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

59. Hi JayWyss!

Keep posting! Glad you're here! :hi:

[DemInDistress]

74. kudos...love that list..

welcome aboard...
this bud's for you...:toast: :toast::thumbsup: :thumbsup: :hi: :hi: :dem:

[Arkansas Granny]

64. When you can give us info like this, it makes me wish

you'd post more often. Welcome!

[xkenx]

54. Look At Wes Clark's Speech @ Convention

Wes Clark threw the gauntlet down at the Dem. Convention. It has become the blueprint for the polotical handling of the national security issue. Only the first part is here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, my fellow Democrats. I am an American soldier.

Our country was attacked. We are at war. Our nation is at risk, engaged in a life-or- death struggle against terrorists who are seeking nuclear and biological weapons. And as I speak tonight, our armed forces are in combat.

Our freedoms were won in war, and protected by generation after generation of selfless service and sacrifice. From Bunker Hill to Bastogne, from the frozen hills of Korea to the jungles of Vietnam, from Kabul to Baghdad, American men and women in uniform have served with honor; they've given us so much, and they've asked for so little.

Tonight we honor them: our soldiers, our veterans, their families. I want to thank my wife, Gert, my son Wesley, his wife and son and all the military families who stand behind those who serve. Now I ask you to observe with me a moment of silence to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, so that we could have the freedom we exercise tonight.

War. I've been there. Heard the thump of enemy mortars. Seen the tracers fly. Bled on the battlefield. Recovered in hospitals. Received and obeyed orders. Sent men and women into battle. Awarded medals, comforted families, attended funerals. And this soldier has news for you: Anyone who tells you that one political party has a monopoly on the best defense of our nation is committing a fraud on the American people. Franklin Roosevelt said it best: "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."

This hall and this party are filled with veterans who have served under this flag - our flag. We rose and stood reveille to this flag. We saluted this flag. We fought for this flag. And we've seen brave men and women buried under this flag. This flag is ours! And nobody will take it away from us.

The safety of our country demands urgent and innovative measures to strengthen our armed forces. The safety of our country demands credible intelligence. The safety of our country demands cooperation with our allies. The safety of our country demands making more friends and fewer enemies. The safety of our country demands an end to the doctrinaire, ineffective policies that currently grip Washington.

[Nothing Without Hope]

56. The other side of this is that we have to hold accountable any Dem

Congress members who spout these GOP talking points.

And yet another side is that we need to get clear, unambiguous statements from all Congress members, especially Dems and Independents, on exactly what their stand is on important issues like this. A questionnaire, perhaps? That would tell US what they think and also serve to rebut GOP propaganda.

[gokar]

57. Democrats had the balls to drop the atom bomb, and they are weak on def??

President Truman had the foresight, moral courage and guts to use
nuclear weapons to stop the aggression of the imperial Japanese.
He saved atleast 10 times more lives by doing that than those killed
by dropping the bomb.

It was democrats, president Kennedy and Johnson who made the decision
to stop the communists in Viet-Nam. IMO the war was not won because
it was fought from Washington politics instead of from the pentagon.

Without democratic votes it would have been impossible for the shrub
to attack Iraq.

In view of all these facts, the democratic party has clearly not shown
to be weak on defense or military actions.

[Adelante]

58. Well, nobody says we get it right everytime

God knows.

[eridani]

71. More sick-making sociopathology. Justifying the mass murder of millions--

--of Vietnamese. BTW, they're still communist, 30 years later. And despite that they have caused no harm to any US citizen during that time, any more than they did during any time before that except for the US citizens that were attacking them. Granted, they did invade Cambodia, but since Cambodia was also communist it's obvious that communism is and was irrelevant to local power struggles over land ownership in the lower Mekong. And when Pol Pot was overthrown as a result, the US press announced that "the Prussians of Asia" had no right to invade a sovereign country, even if Cambodia was better off without Pol Pot. The US government, acting through China, proceeded to arm Pol Pot and foment civil war there.

Read the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence, and then explain why we had any business tearing that document up and murdering millions to enforce its abolishment. If it sounds familiar, it should. Invoking our own similar declaration was most assuredly on purpose.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1945vietnam.html

"All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.

The Declaration of the French Revolution made in 1791 on the Rights of Man and the Citizen also states: "All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights."

Those are undeniable truths.

Nevertheless, for more than eighty years, the French imperialists, abusing the standard of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, have violated our Fatherland and oppressed our fellow­citizens. They have acted contrary to the ideals of humanity and justice.

In the field of politics, they have deprived our people of every democratic liberty.
<etc.>

[sepia_steel]

60. May I borrow this?

I'd like other people (not on DU) to see this.

[Sparkly]

63. Please do!

:hi:

[Stinky The Clown]

61. As the Repubs are so good at quoting Dem messages and claiming them

as their own .... so should/could the Dems claim a Republican's message. The message of Teddy Roosevelt .......

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

That kinda says it all.

And we need to speak tough. Tough in the way Cindy Sheehan is tough. Tough in the way Paul Hackett is tough. Not tough as an adopted posture. But tough as in naturally tough.

Tough Guys. That's what we need to be. And that term is gender neutral.

Tough in our (foreign) policies and tough in the way we wage campaigns for elected office.

In a post to this thread, up above, someone used the 'dick waving' analogy. If we want to have a dick waving contest with the Repubs, we win, hands down. We are tougher. We've proved it. We are stronger, but we **need** to prove it.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Good words.

[dajoki]

62. they have the...

balls to say dems are weak on defense after they cut defense budget so their rich friends could get massive tax breaks, don't take care of vets, spread us thin all over the world without proper equipment, invade a sovereign country that couldn't hurt us, have the most arrogant foreign policy ever, can't get new recruits and leave our homeland virtually unprotected.

[Fire Walk With Me]

65. They knew about Atta and "laden determined to strike in US" for years

and did nothing. Exactly who are the monsters??

Because they knew, they had the information, they had the organizations and personnel to acquire this information, it's obvious that it's good enough already. We don't need Homeland Security, we don't need a Patriot Act, and other power grabs wrapped in flags and religion.

[Hidden Stillness]

66. We Have Always Supported the Troops--We Even Want to Arm + Pay Them

It is bullshit to claim that the great classic liberals of the Democratic Party, or the majority of the Party itself, is just anti-military or "weak" on defense as a blanket statement. That has never been the case, and should be attacked wherever claimed. We don't need "D"LC corporatists or Republican imperialists manipulating this claim as an issue, when most of the manipulators were draft-dodgers, unlike Kerry, Wes Clark, George McGovern, Gore, etc. As for the rank-and-file liberal Democrat, I have never been anti-war as a generality; I am just anti- neverending disaster.

[Q]

67. It's easy for the Neocons and their Neodem allies...

...to claim that being against the Iraq invasion and occupation equates with being anti-military or 'weak on defense' because they're working with those who control the media. Together they control the message and thus can frame the debate.

Democrats need to realize that this 'weak on defense' rhetoric is coming from...not just from the Right...but from factions within the Democratic party that want to intimidate the rank and file and progressive politicians into silence about their illegal and immoral wars.

So...we're fighting for the truth against both the fascist Right and the collaborators in our own party.

[blondeatlast]

68. The RW has gotten away with spreading OUR message THEIR way for too long.

You are right on, Sparkly, right on; and we fall for it far too often.

[eridani]

72. If "toughness" continues to equal "imperial bullying" this country--

--is done for. It's an unfortunate fact of life that Dems (since the end of WW II anyway) have been as complicit in enforcing elite economic hegemony by military means as Repubs. At least until the advent of the DLC, the major difference was that Dems wanted to share the loot with the rest of the population and the Repubs wanted to save it for the elite.

Trouble is that the most significant strategic reality of the 21st century is that domination is very expensive, and FSU is very cheap. Britain and the Soviet Union were forced to abandon their imperial ambitions on the grounds of expense, and the US will eventually have to do the same. The only remaining question is whether we will destroy ourselves internally as a functioning society first.

And if Clark thinks the Vietnam war was basically a good idea and is in favor of corporate globalization, he's part of the the problem. Having more military bases in foreign countries that we have in our own country has exactly jackshit to do with defense.

And "humanitarian intervention" to stop people from ripping each other to shreds fighting for the scraps that are left over from developed country overconsumption would be completely unnecessary if we would just quit the damn overconsuming. For starters, that means total elimination of the attempt to conquer the rest of the world's diminishing resources by force, and replacing that effort with a crash program to invent a more frugal post-oil economy, fast.

And now for some final words of wisdom from the Democratic Party platform of 1900. Great gramma and grampa knew a thing or three that we seem to have forgotten.

http://federalistpatriot.us/histdocs/platforms/democratic/dem.900.html

We declare again that all governments instituted among men derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that any government not based upon the consent of the governed is a tyranny, and that to impose upon any people a government of force is to substitute the methods of imperialism for those of a republic. We hold that the Constitution follows the flag,and denounce the doctrine that an Executive or Congress deriving their existence and their powers from the Constitution can exercise lawful authority beyond it or in violation of it. We assert that no nation can long endure half republic and half empire, and we warn the American people that imperialism abroad will lead quickly and inevitably to despotism at home.

<snip>

We oppose militarism. It means conquest abroad and intimidation and oppression at home. It means the strong arm which has ever been fatal to free institutions. It is what millions of our citizens have fled from in Europe. It will impose upon our peace loving people a large standing army and unnecessary burden of taxation, and will be a constant menace to their liberties. A small standing army and a well-disciplined state militia are amply sufficient in time of peace. This republic has no place for a vast military establishment, a sure forerunner of compulsory military service and conscription. When the nation is in danger the volunteer soldier is his country's best defender. The National Guard of the United States should ever be cherished in the patriotic hearts of a free people. Such organizations are ever an element of strength andsafety. For the first time in our history, and coeval with the Philippine conquest, has there been a wholesale departure from our time honored and approved system of volunteer organization. We denounce it as un-American, un-Democratic and un-Republican, and as a subversion of the ancient and fixed principles of a free people.

Well, boyzngirlz, can you say "PATRIOT Act"? I knew you could!

[banana republican]

73. dems win wars GOPHERS loost them

WW I Democrat

WW II Democrat

Korea Republican

Viet Nam Republican

The GREAT & MIGHTY WAR FOR GRENEDA Republican

War on Drugs Republican