This was originally posted in March at The Fourth Rail but updated to address the recent attitudes and actions by Democrats towards Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, withdrawal from Iraq and other issues.
In March, Peter Beinart, editor of The New Republic and advocate of the Democratic Party taking a stronger stand of defense issues, wrote a column called (A Democratic Call to Arms) discussing why the Democratic party needs to take defense issues seriously, and how they can improve their standing with military voters.
He presented an interesting statistic – almost 18% of the electorate either has or currently has served in the military, and this number is “roughly the same share of the electorate as blacks and Latinos combined.” Mr. Beinart then goes on to explain Republicans are increasing their influences in the black and Latino community, while the Democratic Party is losing the support of active and retired military voters. This, combined with a report from The New Republic’s Noam Scheiber that states the Democrats are losing white, working-class voters, is a formula for a long stay in the political wilderness.
Mr. Beinart then suggests changes the Democratic Party can make to get voters, specifically the military voters, to trust the Democratic Party on issues of national defense. His solution? Criticize the Bush administration on benefits issues, “developing a cadre of national Democrats with real defense expertise”, and make amends for degrading the military during Vietnam and afterwards by allowing military recruiters on campus.
While Mr. Beinart should be commended for thinking about ways for the Democratic Party to reconcile with military voters, and his suggestions have some merit, he is thinking small and sidestepping the obvious. The distrust towards Democrats on a national level by many in the military is directly related to the timid foreign policy put forth by the party, as well as its willingness to disparage current military operations and servicemen for political gain.
Those who serve are typically not as nuanced as the average Democratic policymaker; they see the inherent threat posed by dictatorships in the Middle East and understand the relationships between terrorists and these abhorrent regimes. The straightforward Republican foreign policy of reforming the Middle East, promoting freedom and actively hunting al Qaeda and other terrorists using a combination of military, police and diplomatic measures is appealing to the average soldier, marine and airman.
Blatant attempt to ridicule and undermine these policies for political purposes are easily sniffed out, such as backtracking on reasons to go to war when they supported the WMD intelligence in the past, or comparing every military conflict to Vietnam, or criticizing the military over securing weapons depots and losing Osama bin Laden, or criticizing and demonizing the PATRIOT Act without providing an alternative, or echoing the rhetoric of the enemy, or referring to every military action as a quagmire, and stating the United States and its military are torturers.
A sizable percentage of the military perceive these statements to be both anti-military and anti-American.
Here are some suggestions for the Democratic Party to increase their base among the military community.
Marginalize politicians that demand the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, just days prior to the historical election.
Do not nominate politicians to run for the Office of President that blatantly lie about their military service; or have lied about the actions of American soldiers in Vietnam in front of Congress, saying they “had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam”; or believed the threat of Communism was “bogus, totally artificial”; or negotiated with the enemy during a time of war, essentially violating his oath as an officer in the Naval Reserves; or ape the language of Michael Moore.
Do not issue campaign videos referring to Iraq as a quagmire, while are troops are honorably fighting and dying there on a daily basis.
Stop elevating the likes of Michael Moore, who referred to Iraqi Baathists and foreign terrorists as “the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen” and American contractors murdered brutally in Iraq as “MERCENARIES and SOLDIERS OF FORTUNE”. Distance yourself from radical antiwar Leftist groups, such as Moveon.org, who advertise with a campaign video of an American soldier raising his weapons in surrender.
Do not elect an antiwar former Democratic presidential primary candidate as the party chairman.
Quit pandering to organizations that refer to the detention facilities in Guantanamo Bay as a Gulag. Understand the true meaning of Gulag before you issue such a serious charge. Distance yourself as well from politicians who equate American soldiers with "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others.". Enough with the self flagellation over Abu Ghraib.
Reject attempts by members of your party to continually brand the War in Iraq as being based on LIES, LIES, LIES (as well as plots by Jews). Stop advocating for the withdrawal from Iraq.
The surface has barely been scratched, but this is good a start.
The behaviors outlined above tend to be viewed as anti-military, and dare I say anti-American, by military voters. These attitudes are more important to military voters than promoting politicians who can "speak the language of the military", increase benefits or apologize for Vietnam. Until military voters perceive the Democratic Party is serious on defense issues, willing to marginalize those who make such outrageous statements and put forth leaders committed to military issues, they will continue to overwhelmingly vote Republican.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
peter beinart to be fair to him, has supported positive approaches to american foreign policy. As have the editors of TNR, for years.
Im NOT going to respond to your hodgepodge list, which includes some items done by only a few Dems, and some items which are engaged in by responsible Republicans and Libertarians as well. Or are something you really outta expect - criticisms of the details of how a war is being fought - I dont think every major American war involved critisism of strategy - the Civil War, WW2, Korea all did. VN had criticism from REPUBLICANS of tactics, which we forget.
You do yourself no service by harping on Kerry, esp on a bunch of accusations that largely turned out to be false. Kerry isnt the issue - hes history - you cant win by running against last time arounds loser.
And no this "you should denounce X" game is silly, and one moderates can never win. Drop it. Its a stupid rhetorical trick. Ive read you on Iraq - youre above this, Bill.
and no, calling for withdrawl, stupid though it is is NOT like calling for an AQ victory in the WOT. Its a political position thats GOT to part of the national dialogue. I think WHENEVER we go to war, its legitimate to debate if we should withdraw from a given front. Trying to illegitimize that is absurd. What leading Dems should do is to argue BACK - explain WHY we need to see the cource - NOT attempt to delegitimize the discussion.
Geez,louise. We are IN Iraq, I think, to build a democracy. I sure as hell hope THEY dont pick up the habit of delegitimizing the opposition. (and yeah,its just as bad when Moore or Dick Durbin do it, too)
Im not sure what you mean by pandering to AI - AI's recent statement was stupid - but they WERE a very important force on behalf of political prisoners for years - I wont give up on them cause of one idiot executive director.
I had thought you free of the depression that seems to be afflicting the rightwing blogosphere, from Sullivan, to Greg, to Joe here. Evidently not. Get over it. The WOT is gonna do just fine. Even if the Bush admin declines. This sort of thing almost ALWAYS happens to 2nd term presidents - why its happening so early to this one I can think of severl reasons i wont get into here, but none of them indicate a loss in Iraq, afghanistan, or anywhere in the WOT.
Now chill out.
liberhawk,
You just don't understand that silence on these issues is interpreted as approval. Again, yes Republicans say stupid things on defense issues at time, but in the War they have acted responsibly. Can you honestly say that about the Democratic party?
This isn't focused on Kerry alone. He was the party's designated presidential candidate during wartime and his past and present statements are very relevant to this issue. You refuse to recognize what is being said is being said by the leaders of your party.
Calling for withdrawal from Iraq is akin to calling for an al Qaeda victory. Remember al Qaeda in Iraq? How do you think al Qaeda would view this?
No depression here, I am merely pointing out that the Democratic Party's credibility on military and national defense issues is seriously degraded by the continual repetition of this anti-military and anti-American rhetoric. This has nothing to do with Bush or the situation in Iraq, this has to do with one party's refusal to act in a serious manner during a time of war.
The Democrats have gotten themselves into a positive feedback situation concerning military affairs. Aka a death spiral.
The only way out at this point is for them to publically fight their own nutballs. Bill Clinton did this on social policy by denouncing Sistah Souljah.
The Democrats are in much worse trouble now on military policy. Tthey've let nutballs become their leaders - Durbin is their Senate Whip.
So now they have only two choices, to denounce Durbin or by silence let him define their identity.
And they're letting Durbin and inflammatory statements by others define their identity.
I repeat, the only Democrats speaking out on such issues are saying things like Durbin is. None dispute him or senior Democrats like him.
Because they all agree with those statements. That's what they really believe. It's who they really are.
"You just don't understand that silence on these issues is interpreted as approval."
NO. silence does not imply consent. If you mean as a practical political matter, i think you are wrong. How does Joe Leiberman do in Conn among vets - just fine I think. As well as he would if he spent his time shouting at Ted Kennedy. Kerry lost cause he was Kerry - its not contagious like you like to think - americans tend to vote the man, not the party.
"Again, yes Republicans say stupid things on defense issues at time, but in the War they have acted responsibly. Can you honestly say that about the Democratic party? "
I dont charecterize the party. I the party has a mixed record. Its a coalition, one thats split on defense issues. As the GOP is split on some important domestic issues. And dont go tell me again that the WOT is more important than, say SCOTUS. It is NOT the whole WOT that splits the Dems, but specific actions.
"his isn't focused on Kerry alone. He was the party's designated presidential candidate during wartime and his past and present statements are very relevant to this issue. You refuse to recognize what is being said is being said by the leaders of your party. "
Kerry didnt say to leave Iraq. Youre conflating different issues. I was talking about your focus on his personal Viet Nam ghosts.
"alling for withdrawal from Iraq is akin to calling for an al Qaeda victory. Remember al Qaeda in Iraq? How do you think al Qaeda would view this? "
What does akin mean? That it would strategically help an AQ victory - well, duh, thats why i want us to stay in Iraq. Ya think cutting off lend lease to the USSR in WW2 would have been akin to a Nazi victory? I do. And most Repubs then voted to cut lendlease to the USSR. Does that mean they wanted a Nazi victory? That they were traitors? I think opposing national health insurance will lead some people to die who neednt die - does that mean I beleive that folks who oppose national health insurance are "akin" to wanting sick uninsured people to die? No, of course not.
Logic A opposes policy X. Policy X is the best way for entity P to beat entity Q. Ergo A is opposed to entity P beating entity Q. Discuss why this is fallacious.
"o depression here, I am merely pointing out that the Democratic Party's credibility on military and national defense issues is seriously degraded by the continual repetition of this anti-military and anti-American rhetoric."
most of the rhetoric you report is NOT anti-military per se, or anti-american. Its opposed to specific Bush administration policies, from our presence in Iraq to specific interrogation methods. Some of it is justified, much is not. Much of what is not comes from a few.
You do realize, btw, that interrogation policy is set by the CIA, DoD civilians, etc and not for the most part by uniformed military, dont you?
Durbin is an idiot for comparing anything at Gitmo to the nazis, etc. OTOH the WH is going on about how he insulted the military - like its the uniformed military that sets overall policy wrt Gitmo.
Durbin would have been a very good subject for a post - I think Bill could make a strong case for denunciation on THAT. quoting somebody whos mixing it in with every nat sec accusation against dems since Doug McArthur, hes NOT contributing to a good discussion of the Durbin remark.
No Dems are speaking out in defense of the interrogation policy. And i got news for you, quite a few thoughtful Repubs arent either.
"Aka a death spiral." if i was a GOP congressman in a swing district, based on the polls this is one Dem death spiral I wouldnt be eager to see continue.
liberalhawk:
"... hodgepodge list, which includes some items done by only a few Dems ..."
Those "few Dems" include the top Democratic leadership in Congress, the chairman of the national committee, and the recent candidate for President. Take a look at the heated defense of these individuals and then tell me that they speak only for themselves.
Please note that Dick Durbin is not a talk radio Antilimbaugh, he's the second highest ranking Democrat in the Senate.
Which is the fatal dynamic of the Democratic Party - lacking any larger vision beyond protecting and expanding every aspect (no matter how petty) of their own power, they have no immune system to protect them against their own cranks. On the contrary, the cranks rule. Others might object to some of the things they say or do, but they defend them to the death all the same, otherwise the hated Republicans might score a point.
So any idiot can commit the entire party to suicidal positions, any time he wants to. Which is why they are already committed to extreme positions in the WoT, from A to Z.
... this "you should denounce X" game is silly, and one moderates can never win. Drop it.
You wish. But the "moderates" are definitely losing the game of "If Dick Durbin says X, I must go on Meet the Press and say X also".
In fact, your "moderates" will lose any game you want to play, because they haven't got enough juice in them to lick a postage stamp.
"No depression here, I am merely pointing out that the Democratic Party's credibility on military and national defense issues is seriously degraded by the continual repetition of this anti-military and anti-American rhetoric."
its just a tactical piece then? Electoral horse race? Odd, since i havent seen such material from you, or generally here. But then i dont always follow this site. And its done in abstract from any particular race. And Beinarts piece was months ago.
Sorry, but it feels to me more like a rant. One inspired by Gitmo blues, it seems. Look bad stuff happened there. It feels worse when some idiots make it into something worse than it is (gulag, nazis, etc) (BTW, did anyone denounce Santorum for his Nazis remark?) Like when somebody you like ran a read light, and somebody digs into him for 40,000 traffic deaths. And it was an intersection where the visibility was pretty good, after all. And there was a seriously good reason to hurry.
Like I said, were still gonna interrogate people. We're still gonna get intell. IF we change techniques, the costs in lost intell MAY exceed the gains in hearts and minds. Or they may not. I dont know, im no seer and theres too little public source info to know. It may hurt Bushs poll numbers. But hes not running for anything again, ya know? maybe it willhurt the GOP in 2006 - but ya know what, the way theyve been carrying on lately they might be better off long term with a slight loss now. As for the Dems an increase in numbers almost always moderates them - the swing seats almost always elect moderates - thats ONE of the reasons theyve been less moderate in Congress since 1994.
Silence does not NORMALLY imply consent.
Sometimes it does. The Democratic Party has become a monoculture on national security - publicaly they are opposed to it.
"Who are you going to believe - me or your own lying eyes?"
Ok, ive about had it here. really. This used to be a decent site - or maybe i thought so when i wasnt here that much. Too bad Sully is either going on about Gitmo, gays, or hes off on a gendered brain kick. BD aint posting much, and when he does hes long and depressed.
But you guys, and youre frankly unfair partisan rhetoric, is driving me away. Frankly Rantburg, with its seasoning of actual loonies, is a more pleasant place than this - at least they have a sense of humor, a certain "lightness of being" and even a real tolerance for different viewpoints in the WOT I dont find here.
Too bad Dan posts here. I see some of his stuff elsewhere, but not all.
Ask a Democrat in elective office to say the following:
"Our foreign enemies should be destroyed. We should kill them."
He won't.
Your party is now reliant on an ideologically narrow but generous base of contributors. Those used to be a rather small number of wealthy contributors until Joe Trippi and others in Dean's campaign figured out a way to tap lots of small contributors, principally through the internet. But both groups have a common ideology where national security is concerned.
And the influence of such contributors has been magnified by the Democrats being out of power in both houses of Congress as well as the Presidency. You guys no longer have enough contributions at the national & congressional levels from business to in any way counter-balance the individual contributors.
So no one in a position to speak for the Party well enough to give it an appearance of ideological diversity dare denounce outrageous statements by senior Democrats such as Durbin. Doing so cuts them off from general election funding by the Party's chief source of campaign contributions and worse, invites primary challenges by those more ideologically pure.
Which is one of the reasons why I call this a death spiral.
The Democratic Party will be in danger of extinction once it becomes a purely sectional party. With the exception of Illinois, it does seem headed in that direction. The South and West, excepting the coast, are solidly Republican. The Midwest and Mississippi Valleys are trending more and more Republican, Illinois excepted.
IMO it will be over for the Democrats when they are fully backed up to the Northeast and Pacific Coast, unless they have by then abandoned their animosity towards national security. Purely sectional parties die when they are perceived as hostile to the nation.
Your party's future is on the line right now.
Liberalhawk said:
>NO. silence does not imply consent. If you mean
>as a practical political matter, i think you
>are wrong.
Tell that to Operation Rescue after nuts fired up by their rhetoric started murdering Abortionists.
Tell that to Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress after the Murrah Building Bombing in Oky City, when Clinton used it as a club to get reelected in 1996.
In politics, unlike Law, "Guilt by Association" is punishable by the death penalty.
The fate of the Federalist party awaits the Democrats as long as you are afraid to challenge your nutballs and moonbats.
p.s. to liberalhawk,
I doubt the posters on Rantburg are any more forgiving on this subject than we at WOC are. Comparing them on other subjects to us on this one is a transparent excuse. The subjects should at least be comparable.
Durbin insulted the Americans who are doing most of the dying these days, not merely the Bush Administration. Ask them on Rantburg how they feel about that.
liberalhawk: But you guys, and youre frankly unfair partisan rhetoric, is driving me away.
Talk about unfair. Threatening to take your ball and go home is no fair, LH.
Consider these things: This is a thread about the Democrats reaching out to the pro-military vote. The things said here are the sort of thing Democrats will have to address in order to do that. Excuse me for pointing out that your reaction is all too familiar - resentment at having to address the dialogue in the first place.
Resentment is a major theme in Dem rhetoric these days, because Democrats are never having the kind of debate they want. Why not? Because Republicans and conservatives are talking bolding about the things they want to talk about, while Democrats are stuck defending the likes of Durbin, Dean, and Boxer. They are continually having to play the hand deal to them by someone else, and it's not my fault.
>No Dems are speaking out in defense of the
>interrogation policy. And i got news for you,
>quite a few thoughtful Repubs arent either.
The problem for all Democrats and those few Republicans is that the American public supports the current policy at Gitmo almost 3-to-1.
See here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159790,00.html
Recently, after allegations that troops mistreated prisoners, some critics have urged the closing of the U.S. military prison that houses terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay (search), Cuba. The poll finds almost 6 in 10 voters (59 percent) think the prison should stay open, 22 percent think it should be closed and 19 percent are unsure.
In addition, 43 percent think the prison meets "accepted standards for treating prisoners," while 33 percent think the prison is failing to meet those standards and almost a quarter (24 percent) are unsure.
Prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay are given copies of the holy Muslim book the Koran. If the situations were reversed, and Muslims were holding Americans as prisoners, few respondents think the same sensitivity would hold true: 10 percent believe Americans would offered copies of the Bible, while 75 percent do not.
liberhawk,
This advice to the Democratic Party on how to act more responibly on military matters, from someone who served in the military and has an understanding as to why people in the military think the Democrats are weak and will not vote for them.
Say what you like, but as this post illustrates, your party is rife with people in senior positions willing to put thier politics over our national security.
As to your whining, I believe it speaks for itself. We doin't agree with you, so its mrely partisan rhetoric and we're the bad guys. How childish.
Liberalhawk said:
>But you guys, and youre frankly unfair partisan
>rhetoric, is driving me away. Frankly Rantburg,
>with its seasoning of actual loonies, is a more
>pleasant place than this - at least they have a
>sense of humor, a certain "lightness of being"
>and even a real tolerance for different
>viewpoints in the WOT I dont find here.
The problem here isn't rhetoric. It is your inability to deal with reality.
Like the vast majority of Modern Democrats, you break out in public hives when serious issues of national security are discussed.
Durbin's outburst and the duck and cover by Democrats documented here by blogger David Logan:
http://thirdwavedave.blogspot.com/2005/06/i-have-position-on-sen-durbin.html
Ted Kennedy 202-224-4543...."Not quite sure, I'll have to check on that." Not quite sure?
Joe Lieberman 202-224-4041...."Mr. Lieberman has no comment at all." Really?
John Kerry 202-224-2742...."Sen. Kerry doesn't have a position on Sen. Durbin's comments." Why doesn't this surprise me?
This is your United States Senate at work. Proud?
...is just another example of your party's cognitive dissonance whenever national security is involved.
Traitor Kerry colaborating with the regime of the 5% Murder quota crime agaist Humanity in Paris and sliming our troops with false charges was one man.
John Kerry – Communist agent of influence
Its you doing yourself the diservice, defending the indefensable ... and John Kerry was a Presidential Candidate .. .. which explodes your "only a few Dems" excuse.
Like BagDad McDermot and his fellow travelers, there was never a communist thug from the asian continent to south and central america the commie crats Like kerry did not carry water for.
Supported by the Castro Loving Moore-Carter Chavez blessing Commi-Crats as representing them .. and except for Liberaman and most of all Zell Miller who had the integrity to say otherwise, was chosen to represent them.
Even without his treason, he was a far left wackjob to the left of kennedy. and will all that goes with that without exception.
When the commie crats get as upset over that leftist crap comming out of the mouths of their wackjobs, when their rebuke drowns out the wackjobs, that will be a sign of some change in the makeup of, not the makup on, the defeatocrats.
For all the anger they generate those America trashing foul mouths of thiers, its not near as much as that generated in the military, save a few effeminate misfits.
And lastly, its clear that the leftist media speaks for the commie-crats as commicrats.
So when the media trashes America its the same as the democrats trashing America. close to a majority of America knows that now, the sheepskin is off the wolf.
In my opinion, your inability to see the self evident is a perceptual blindness in the extreme.
Our military see the attacks on Bush who defered military decisions to the military, as an attack on them. and an attack on America.
Zell miller is the Democrat that has the ear of the marines ... to him they listen. .. those that dont know that are in denial.
But there are no more Zell Millers in the democrat party ,,, nor will there be in the future.
Frankly, I find it amazing more dont know what that means when they lost Zell, who supported Clinton as a not-so-left moderate and helped form the "end of the tax and spend democrat" message.
Zells attempts to move the democrats away from the communists has failed.
The way Democrat controlled counties foil the ability of our military overseas to cast their ballots, and the count of those ballots that make it past the democrat gountlet of vote tampering bear out pretty strongly that ....
The democrats didnt lose one old Marine, they lost the support of the Marines.
If I was stationed overseas and went thru all the hoops to get a ballot back to the states .. and then there are the commi crats making sure my vote dont count ..im gonna be pissed,
And this is real vote tampering, not the false baseless accusations of vote fraud guilty democrats.
Which reminds me .. we see thru the democrat projection of their dishonesty and other such wild flinging of charges for what it is.
My favorite dodge from liberhawk:
"Kerry didnt say to leave Iraq. Youre conflating different issues. I was talking about your focus on his personal Viet Nam ghosts."
Again, I am discussing the overall tone of the party towards the military and defense. liberhawk distills it down to withdrawing from Iraq, and then says this wouldn't be a defeat from al Qaeda, it isa a responsible position to take, as if this mantra would save him from the reality of the situation: We are currently fighting al Qaeda in Iraq.
I have a feeling he took his ball and went home. He cannot weather the criticism directed at his party, not can he recognize the dire situation his party is in.
Bill,
For what its worth, my view is that this is more of a rant than anything else.
There is no way as a centrist liberal, or as a self-respecting democrat, to engage productively with this post. Far too much demonization, far too much false attribution of intent, far too much picking and choosing your examples.
So you are preaching to your particular partisan choir here.
It is certainly true that a large portion of the electorate has previously served in the military.
But to make the assumption that this large portion of voters support any military action, and especially the military action in Iraq is beyond ludicrous.
As to the
i dire situation the democratic party is in according to Bill. What exactly is he basing it on?
The last election? Seriously?
The current approval ratings of Bush, Cheney, and worse Frist and his fellow Republican congressmen?
Anyone objectively surveying the political landscape today and coming to such an absurd chicken little conclusion is fooling only himself.
But having read Bill in the past, I certainly am not suprised.
I will say this for ya Bill.
Ya really know how to rile up the nuttier part of the right as many of the comments here show.
JC,
go poll some folks in the military and get back to me. Then try to explain why military personel overwhelmingly vote Republican. Call this post what you will, the reality is your party is viewed as weak exactly for the reasons I mentioned.
Glen.
Didnt think of it before, but in so many ways, the democrat-lapdog moonbat media who turned somewhat hostile to Clinton after welfare reform, (notice that?) are another difficulty with any attempt to throw the commies out.
The leftist media polishes up the nutjobs, edits out their wacky statements.
Even before Zell made any hint he would support Bush in the election, his barn burner speaches extoling the Dems to distance themselves from the commies got nothing from the media but contempt.
They dont treat Liberman very well either beyond his use as a moderate mask to distract the public away from the moonbats.
Well at least they dont go as far as to paint a LIE as big,, as it would to forward Liberaman and Zell as representative, they treat Liber,anwith some kindness, but as a otherworldy "conservative" democrat party novelty these days.
There is no way the leftist media would ever lend its support to kicking out the communists.
In that way, the leftist media will garranty the decline of the party they are so ernestly acting in aid of.
Any "Reformer" would have to be a media darling, and that means a leftist moonbat like them.
The democrat part might as well merge with the DSA (the democratic socialists of america have 50 commie democrat members in congress already) and the CPUSA.
Its not as if the ruse will hold up much longer.
Perhaps a new party would be easier than pushing the commies out.
Bill,
Well, those views you espouse are deeply incorrect and untrue. Again, it wouldn't be productive to get into a back-and-forth, it would go nowhere. Lots of electronic ink spilled, no progress made.
But your suggestion may be a good one on the polling. Is that an accurate view of military people? If so, why are these incorrect views held? Especially with the army currently being hollowed out, on the basis of various connected irresponsible policies.
JC,
Consider that there are few centrist Democrats in federal elective office, and all of those are silent on this and other wild statements by other Congressional Democrats or party leaders.
So of course pointing that out will hurt.
Your use of the term "self-respecting" Democrat shows the problem. The majority advice here, by those of us with real political experience as well as the rest, is that the Democrats are in big trouble unless enough of their elected officials publically dissent from statements like Durbin's.
If inability to accept honest advice is too painful for "self-respecting" Democrats, especially when it is true, perhaps the term "self-respecting" should be read as "despairing".
Tom,
Yes, the democrats are in real trouble all right.
I really should make it a point to not respond to these partisan posts. While I appreciate some of the military analysis, just so you know, the partisan posts about democrats or media here at WOC, are petty and divisive, and actually destroy productive discussion about what is true, factual, and well-informed discussion about the war, and international matters.
United we stand, divided we fall.
Bill,
In case it wasn't clear, the view about DEMOCRATS you espouse. If you demonize half the country here, then all the "french loving bastards", then the "weak and ineffectual" EU, then the conniving Chinese, then all of the Middle East, then those socialist Brazilians and Venezuelans...
Well, you're gonna be JUST a bit paranoid.
"Everyone's crazy but me and thee, and sometimes I worry about THEE!"
Can't remember where that comes from.
JC,
No, its your party's leadership, elected and supported by a majority of your party. Make of that what you will, but I do not accuse every Democrat of holding these views.
Davebo,
Not having 'read you in the past', I have nothing to base the intelligence or lack thereof of your comments. Following the polls worked out real well for Democrats the past election, hasn't it?
Centrist Classical Liberal ? Centrist-commie Liberal ?
Those two are hardly centrist, unless you are a commi-libneral in the center of a communist moonbat group think bubble.
Or a classical Liberal standing amongst the founders of our Classical Liberal Republican democracy.
Both of those are hard over polar opposites.
Like Zell Miller ? the rest seem to embrace the cultural marxist doctrine of self loathing and projecting that loathing on America. And our military.
How about this one .. Centrist Anarchist ,, hows that for word fun ..
Centrist Libertarian . now ive got the Liberatarians laughing.
JC, you look on anyone near the center as a right wing radical, such is the perpective of leftists
Stalin was in the "Center" if the defined polar end points are Socialist Facist Italy and PolPots Red Khimers.
Thats the commie-crat problem with their perception of "center".
How about the American principle.
Classical Liberal Republican democracy, limited goverment, equality under the rule of law that respects the constitution as the inviolate law of the land, Freedom Liberty security of Property.
Some are attempting to defend and restore it, some are attempting to destroy that and replace it with polar opposite leftism.
Frankly, the issues that we face make the divider too steep and sharp to have any center.
So in a way it might seem natural for the parties to seperate into a party of American Principle and its leftist enemy.
With the leftist enemy finding an ally in the Marxist-nazi-islamic fanatics against America, Bagdad Mc Dermot standing on mass graves of kids to denounce America and defend a Baath Socialist regime of crimes against humanity,
(Like Kerry did, even tho, unlike McDermot, at least he went to paris, not N Vietnam to colaborate with the enemy)
the rants of Kennedy, McMurray, Peloci, Durbin.
Across the pond,,, Galloway in Britain etc... (and his softer similars)
These are larger issues than the location of traffic lights and the next budget adjustment of medicare.
There is nothing mosderate about a mass grave of kids, or our losses on 911 or the gravity of our many facited project in Iraq.
Nothing moderate about trashing our military and our country ...
Nothing moderate about ALGore screaming "he betrayed this country" or the remarks by Dean.
The issues are large and they will be polarizing, they had better be because they are important.
Fine with me .. makes it easier to see who Americas enemies are ... of both our lives and property, and of our American principle.
There are those with us, and those against us, anyone so without conviction that they dont know what side they are on are little different than the 1/3 that had no feelings either way during the American revolution .. whos best advice is to stand back out of the crossfire.
So perhaps we should not look on the commie crats as anything but a natural polar alignment being forced by the large issues at hand.
that the polar alignment is happening is undeniable, thats for certain.
.
JC: There is no way as a centrist liberal, or as a self-respecting democrat, to engage productively with this post.
You know why that is? Because you feel a need to defend or explain it all away, instead of acknowledging the problem.
So for each offense that can't be denied or ignored, you have to hunt around for an example of a Republican doing something similar (Two wrongs make me right and make you a hypocrite) as if that were some kind of exoneration.
In the case of Durbin, everybody is pointing at Rick Santorum, for example. But Santorum's remarks (which he apologized for) were not even remotely comparable to what Durbin said.
So I can't feel sorry for self-respecting centrists who feel obligated to wear every stinky albatross that idiots like Durbin want to hang around their necks. Not my idea of self-respect.
Did Robert Byrd apologize* for making similar comments the week before?
Just to get back to Bill's original point:
"Qui tacet consentire videtur"
is a well known Latin legal phrase. It means "he who remains silent is understood to agree," or "silence implies consent."
When Republicans realized exactly what Nixon knew and when he knew it they closed ranks with dems and proceeded to impeachment. I am still waiting for one single prominent member of the democratic party to call all this America bashing what it is--irresponsible, dangerous to our troops and our national interest, and inimical to our hopes for peace with justice in Iraq and the greater Middle East. For crying out loud how can a serious political party subordinate the lives of our soldiers, our position in the world and all the good we have accomplished and are accomplishing for the oppressed and tortured (really tortured) people of Iraq to their hatred of Bush and their obvious obsessive lust for political gain. I just don't get it. I am ashamed and disgusted by the party for which I once voted.
I appreciate the fact that Mr. Roggio has taken the time to write on the subject, and I think offering a credible, strong national security strategy is something the Democrats must do in a way they haven't in the past. Kerry let Bush win on the issues of the war on terror and Iraq. It's probably the most central reason the guy lost. So the party does have a serious problem. And there is a contingent of elected Democrats and Democratic activists who shouldn't be allowed to determine the party or the country's direction on the issue.
But as I've said in the past, it's important not to confuse the larger issue with the partisan advice given here. I'll not take the time to flesh out a disagreement to everything Mr. Roggio pointed out, but
1) backtracking on pre-war intelligence was done for a damn good reason by everyone in DC, even the president.
2) the weapons depot story was perfectly indicitave of the failure of the administration's strategy in Iraq viz number of troops
3) the failure to kill OBL isn't the fault of the military and no Democrats seriously suggest that. The military wasn't given the orders it needed. A political failure.
4) criticizing the PATRIOT Act is a bipartisan action, and a recently successful one. Furthermore, Bush has lied in his defense of it.
5) echoing the rhetoric of the enemy? Like Bill Buckley. It's called debate. In a democracy, we do that for wars. Or at least we should. Don't ask people to fight if you won't entertain questions of "why" or "how."
6) Some in the US military are torturers, enough to suggest it is official practice, if not universal practice. The US govt makes torture an official policy, through rendition and other methods. The Gitmo interrogations don't even fit the UCMJ. Not the only thing the military does, not true of every soldier, not the first line on the history of the American armed forces. Doesn't have to be the case to be true.
7) the demand for withdrawl is a perfectly legitimate position to take in a democracy. it may be wrong. but advocating it is not de facto treason.
8) Giving the time of day to that mob of liars the SBVT's is the height of unseriousness.
9) the US had damn well better be able to explain to the rest of the world why it goes to war
10) it's not unpatriotic to suggest the current gov't isn't doing what it needs to win a war.
11) The Iraq war was neither begun not conducted with a standard of honesty the American political will demands as payment.
12) Moral equivalence is wrong, and America is great because of what we do, not who we are. If America tortures, we are too close to the regimes we rightly fought and denounced. What he pointed out do not rise to the level of what the Nazis or Soviets did, I agree. But are they then automatically what America should do? Isn't that a question worth asking and having answered honestly? Yes.
13) Durbin bashing is going to look a little silly a few weeks from now. Calculated and silly.
14) Withdrawl is a legitimate option for the American people to entertain and have their leaders debate. If every politican who ever demanded an exit strategy from war was banned from the presidency, Bush would not be president.
15) Tom, let's play "who said it"
"He promised increased spending on intelligence and Special Forces along with more help from U.S. allies, and issued a warning to al Qaeda.
'You cannot run, you cannot hide,' he said. 'We will destroy you.'"
1 guess. No Google.
16) Michael Moore = Rush Limbaugh. Not really better, but probably not worse. And certainly not an elected Democrat.
So, when I say the specifics of these charges are almost certainly not worth getting tripped up over, this is what I mean. It's more than unreasonable for Democrats to think they need to answer every little thing here, and indeed attempting to do so would be disasterous. We'd always fail, because so many of the actions we're supposed to take aren't right. So there'd be no point in trying. But just because Mr. Roggio is wrong on many of the examples doesn't mean Democrats don't have a problem that needs to be taken care of. I hope they can see that through all the partisan sniping.
ricksamerican
Commies like John Kerry that gave aid and confort to a regime of crimes against humanity, no different from all the rest of the commie thugs they smooched boots in love for ...
They look on you as a usefull idiot, they hate our freedom, they love their socialist dream.
from
Those that excuse and defend the worst perps of crimes against humanity, blind to its horrific results, still expend effort to create it here.
Leftism stands in discredit, but leftism is the worlds most fanatical religion, and the results of what they advocate that created the lake of blood has not altered their faith.
When Bagdad McDermot stood on mass graves of kids to support the regime that created the crimes against humanity hidden under his feet... he knew about the mass graves, he knew the schools was a meat market for underage sex toys and live tiger food
He knew all of that, democrat DSA congress persons that visut Castro to smooch his boots know about his Gulags
They know, those democrats, leftist media protected democrats, they know about the horrors there. they fly down smooch his boots and plot against America.
They are the same monsters they smooch excuse and defend.
bq, SamAm: Michael Moore = Rush Limbaugh. ?
Did Rush stand on mass graves of kids to defend a regime of crimes against humanity and denounce the united states ? (what kerry did was similar)
Well, you certainly painted yourself unfavorably with that..
I was gonna give you a good fisking. but that last one fisks yourself to such a glactic extent anything I added would detract from it.
The rest can take a lesson from it, yes, their ability to judge right from wrong is broken inverted and dysfunctional to that degree.
Tinfoil hat moonbats shrugging past mass graves of kids, and their own people that stand on mass graves of kids to make anti american films about the united states.
A small peep into their twisted world.
Notice he repeated the gitmo=gulag accusation again to the tune of "fake but accurate".
Not that im complaining, the more unhinged they become, the more elections they will lose. They see no fault in themselves, so they wont be changing anything.
So, good for us. bad for them, good for America.
.
JC,
I know what I'm talking about concerning election campaigns and campaign finance. The Democrats are in a world of hurt due to their campaign fund-raising patterns. You might learn something from that.
It is my practice to explain why, and not merely what.
Liberalhawk --
I am a lifelong registered Democrat. I voted for Bill Clinton TWICE. I campaigned for Dukakis. I defended Clinton during impeachment. I STILL like the guy.
But I know my Party has a serious problem. When Muslims burn and stomp the flag in NYC, not a single DEM denounces it. Not a single Dem stands up for the GI, Marine, or Sailor when Durbin, or Maxine Waters, or John Conyers, or Jim Moran calls them stooges for Ariel Sharon's "jewish controlled genocide."
Not a single Democrat has criticized Bush for not doing ENOUGH to win against the jihadis and kill bin Laden and his IDEAS. Instead of focusing on Bush's wimpiness in letting the House of Saud, or Musharreff, or the Mullahs skate by, they have a fainting spell at the suggestion that John Bolton might put his hands on his hips when talking to the "honored" representatives from those fine countries.
This is because, FUNDAMENTALLY, Democrats do not BELIEVE in the military, National Defense, or use of force. They believe in the UN, "international law," "negotiations," the need for "dialogue" and the necessity to avoid "demonizing the other." They hold Vietnam as the example of what every military action will be, and the Civil Rights struggle as universally projected through every conflict. They believe with the passion of the truly converted that "violence never solves anything" and that through non-violent struggle they will prevail. Meanwhile viewing America as the enemy of mankind. This is the legacy of the Sixties and the anti-War movement. Ward Churchill is not some extremist, he's representative of folks like McKinney, Waters, Murray ("Osama builds day-care centers"). Lunacy rotting through the entire party.
When frigid AC and rap music is compared to torture, on hardened Al Qaeda killers who helped in 9/11, I know the Party is done for. When Teddy Kennedy weeps on the Senate Floor on the bad treatement of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the architect of 9/11, I know the Party is HOSTILE to idea that America deserves defending.
Why is that? Because ANSWER, Moveon (founded by the Berkeley Systems Flying Toasters loony-left millionaires), Kos, Dean, Michael Moore, and George Soros RUN THE PARTY. Even Hillary Clinton echoes their rhetoric when addressing them. These are the money men and the drove out folks like Truman, FDR, Scoop Jackson.
Quick ... name ONE Senate or House Democrat who is knowledgeable about a Service or major weapons system. Quick ... name one Democrat who does not toe the ACLU/AI/Durbin "gulag" line and worries about Al Qaeda killers being offended.
Zell Miller used to fit this description. As Governor he fought to dump the Confederate flag from the Georgia state flag, and sponsored the Project Hope scholarships, both generating considerable criticism from the yahoo right. When he got to the Senate, doing the Governor a favor replacing dead Republican Senator Paul Coverdell, he was treated with disdain and his love of the Marines, Flag, and country openly mocked by Kerry, Kennedy, and Clinton's staff (doubtless coming from the Senators) which explains why he is not enamored with the Party today. When you can't keep ZELL MILLER you have a problem.
One addendum --
Joe Biden described a visit to prominent but unamed and wealthy West Coast Democratic Donors. Presumably the Hollywood money crowd. He gave them a scenario (probably a trial balloon) that as President, he reports them as their CIA/Sec. of Defense and tells them:
*We know bin Laden is in Western Pakistan, a tribal area beyond any control of the Government of Musharreff.
*It will mean 400-500 American lives, and likely war with Pakistan, but we can get bin Laden and 1,000 of his followers.
*Do we act?
To a man they said no.
This in a nutshell is the problem with the Party. Democrats will not use force unless it is absolutely bloodless. Anyone getting killed anywhere and at any time is simply unacceptable to them. Clinton did not act to forbid any attempts to kill bin Laden that might kill civilians or visiting Gulf princes out of being evil, but out of the real values that the Democratic Party pushes above all others: no killing anyone at any time.
This is a fantasy ideology for a fantasy world, and is why even though the country is deeply dissatisfied with Bush's handling of the economy and failure to wind down the Iraq War and instead engaging in attrition warfare, Dems will go nowhere.
We really do have people who want to kill us, who have the idea that if they kill enough of us we will collapse and they will rule us, like Comic Book villains. They already believe seriously they destroyed the Soviet Union and we are the weaker opponent. They are willing to kill millions of us and if not now will soon possess the means to make that happen. Democrats are simply not responsive to this reality, preferring their fantasy of unicorns and rainbows.
Tom,
Illinois used to be a Republican stronghold until the Rs got corrupt.
It could go R again if the Dems return to their (corrupt) roots.
Right not the Rs are going in the wrong direction (Keyes). I blame that on my Congressman Manzullo and my State Sen. Syverson.
OTOH it is the RHINO wing of the party that is most corrupt. A difficult situation to be sure.
#25 JC asks:
Is that an accurate view of military people? If so, why are these incorrect views held? Especially with the army currently being hollowed out, on the basis of various connected irresponsible policies.
In other words why don't the troops in the fight understand Democrat reality?
Well I'm not going to tell you J.C. You are going to have to find out for yourself. Report back when you have a clue.
Simon,
Yes the RINO's are a pain, so is the authoritarin taint on some.
Serbs, Lies, and Videotape
Why arent we more angry about clinton helping muslim Terrorists ?
No Mass graves created by Serbs in Kosovo.
Those dug up are murdered Serbs, by mulim terrorists.
Democrats and democrat media Lies us into war to help muslim terrorists in Kosovo.
If a democrat is bombing Christians to help terrorists, then no problem with the antiwar(read that anti-non-commie, anti Christian), and NO UN resolution needed either.
But Clinton is a democrat, so rape is ok,, and bombing christians to help muslim terrorists is ok.
To help the enemies of America and kill Christian Serbs who was fighting the same Muslim fanatic head chopper snipers and bombers that we are now.
So when Democrats are in charge bombing Christians and helping Terrorists drive out Christians, with the leftist media propaganda help they get, they seem to have no problem using the military inbetween their cultural marxist experiments on it.
Perhaps the problem the democrats have is we are helping the wrong side ,,,, Saddam was a socialist darling of Galloway and many other hard lefties.
If we was helping those that want to kill us like we did in kosovo, they wouldnt be so angry.
John Spratt.
The Democrats hate force so much they're a bunch of weak traitors and they're ready to surrender and oh yeah, they voted to invade Iraq too so don't blame George W. Bush cause everyone wanted to invade Iraq and Clinton did it too because he hates force so much.
Bill, Jim & Simon,
The Republicans are definitely not trying to exploit Durbin's atrocious statement. They'd be doing things a lot differently if they were.
Starting with comparisons to Kerry's Vietnam testimony to the Senate 34-35 years ago, which is excellent evidence that Durbin's statement represents the Democratic mainstream of several generations standing.
I know political hardball. The GOP is not playing it here. IMO they should.
I donated $100 online to a Republican in Minnesota for his 2006 Senate campaign in protest of Durbin's comment and emailed the receipt to several Democrat Senators, explaining why. [Hugh Hewitt had the idea and link.]
In the process I got into email tag with a hired consultant to the Virginia Democrat Party. His whole take on it was academic like in some college debate. He thinks security is counter to ideals of freedom and liberty. I told him that there can be no freedom or liberty without security first.
I think I stumbled onto a reason why some Democrats are so stupid: they didn't learn to think in college — they just memorized the 1968 thinking of leftist professors.
As long as Democrats pay for this kind of advice, they're way out of tune with anybody who lives in the real world.
Durbin crossed the line here. What he did was not just partisan, it was unpatriotic. I hope the unpatriotic tag sticks to Democrats over this.
I wish there was a thinking Democrat out there. We really do need a two-party system.
Having voted for Durbin a few times, I find this episode embarassing and inexplicable. Durbin has certainly moved left since Clinton left office, but AFAIK he's never been with the irresponsible crowd.
Are forces pulling Democrats to the left? Do they feel so powerless that they feel the need to use rhetoric that sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard to be heard?
I listened to TN Rep. Harold Ford on Hardball this week and while he doesn't sound like the military expert Jim Rockford is looking for, he sounded like a responsible Democrat, questioning military policy in a responsible, respectful fashion. To bad the Democrats wanted Pelosi instead as their spokesperson.
PD Shaw,
There definitely is an overpowering force pulling Democrats to the left - they have become captives of a narrow ideological base of fundraisers.
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007026.php#c11
PD Shaw: "...TN Rep. Harold Ford ... sounded like a responsible Democrat.... To bad the Democrats wanted Pelosi instead as their spokesperson."
You obviously don't understand. Pelosi is white (and female), Ford is black.
The Dems talk a good game about how they're the party of minorities, yadda yadda, but if you look at their public, up-front leadership, they're all white.
In the Dems' world, minorities are useful for demagogery and votes, but we can't have them getting too uppity. :-(
By 1972, America had been heavily engaged in Viet Nam for seven years and had suffered more than 40,000 KIA. The war was widely hated and reviled. The Republican candidate, Richard Nixon, was as hated by Democats as George W. Bush is today. But given a choice between Richard Nixon and George McGovern, an anti-war candidate who called for swift withdrawal, the American people chose Nixon by a better than 3 to 2 margin.
It's a bit a ironic that Democrats who myopically and incorrectly view the Iraq war through the Vietnam lens somehow always manage to overlook this particular political lesson from the Viet Nam era.
As a former Democratic elected official (County Commissioner) in a highly liberal community (Boulder, Colorado), I can attest that large numbers of Democrats are swallowing the anti-war narrative hook, line, and sinker -- and there is little doubt in my mind that the party will pay a high political price for this in future elections -- regardless of how the Iraq campaign comes out.
There is also no quuestion that a great many Democrats have a poor understanding of even elementary military matters. Rembember all those folks singing "Ain't gonna' study war no more" during the '60s? Well they didn't, and it shows.
SamAm -- Yeah Dems ARE allergic to force in any instance of casualties.
EVIDENCE:
1. Clinton running away in Somalia after 18 Army Rangers died in Blackhawk Down, in spite of the Pentagon wanting to return with massive force. This re-inforced bin Laden's view that the US was weak and easily defeated by casualties.
2. Clinton sailing away from Haiti after Tonton Macouts threatened Navy ships and Army peacekeepers.
3. Clinton using impotent missile strikes against countries helping terrorists, instead of overthrowing them.
4. Clinton reacting to Saddam kicking the inspectors out by the impotent and useless bombing campaign Desert Fox 1998-99 that strengthened global perceptions that the US was a paper tiger, unable to deal with any casualties.
5. Clinton's bombing only campaign in Serbia to avoid any casualties which also made the US look weak and unable to respond to attacks.
At no time and at no place since Vietnam has ANY Democrat been willing to consider use of force that would require significant casualties. Instead the Clinton-esque strategy has been to avoid any risk of ground casualties. For fear of political fallout and the idea that military force is itself wrong. There is no other conclusion you can draw from the evidence. This wouldn't be important if were say Luxembourg, but given our enemies and their encouragement by perceived weakness this is VERY dangerous. Consider what happens with the next mass casualty attack which is sadly inevitable. Would YOU put the safety and security of your family and friends in the hands of Democrats? Didn't think so.
Democrats frothing themselves twoard Murder
I was reminded of democrats shooting rifles into our campaign worker rental ofices in the strip malls when I saw this and this and this
Or the democrats marching in New York during the RNC when kids waiting in line with their parents to eat became fair game.
Remember?
It seems its still on the boil out there, they they are still chucking wood under the kettle.
Heh. So I guess all those Democrats who voted to invade Iraq (who we only hear about when the subject of WMD comes up, funny that) don't exist. Poof be gone I suppose.
I'm really not interested in arguing hypotheticals, but President Gore would have invaded Afganistan, probably with more ground troops than Rumsfeld sent.
Furthermore, Carter and Clinton never had reasons to use large scale ground forces. Where was Carter going to send ground troops? For that matter, where was Reagan? We went from Saigon to Kuwait City without a single clear cut instance when the US Army should have engaged an enemy in large scale combat, and from Kuwait City to Kabul again. Where should Clinton have sent ground forces? US soldiers did deploy to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Liberia. We moved carriers against China in 1996. I'm not going to defend his record on national security because I do agree it was, in the hindsight of 9/11 a deeply flawed policy. His wariness over the use of military force was understandable but counterproductive. But of the instances you mentioned, only Somalia stands out as a clearcut failure of the US to use groundforces. And it's not half as much a failure as Tora Bora.
The other 3rd tier conflicts were marginal cases at best in terms of ground forces. It's just ridiculous to suggest he should have sent US soldiers to kill and be killed just to prove the US could accept casualties. There was no political will, among Republicans or Democrats to overthrow the Taliban or Saddam before 9/11, which is why the Bush administration didn't move to do the 1st and only seriously moved to do the 2nd after 9/11 (even if it wanted to before). The next Democratic president will almost certainly be closer to Bush than Clinton in style and policy. As conservatives are especially fond of saying, 9/11 changed everything. Well, you don't have to believe that 100% to understand how the logic of US casualties has changed since Clinton left.
Oh, and yes I certainly would put the safety of the entire world in the hands of the right Democrat. Tried to last year in fact. Will try again next year and in 2008. Bet it'll work out too, at least better than the alternative.
SamAm, your memory is rather poor. There were reasons to intervene with ground troops in Bosnia for many years - and yet Pres. Clinton did not. Finally, he intervened in Kosovo on the basis of false claims of mass murder in Kosovo that didn't pan out. And when the Kosovo intervention began, from the air, the bombing tactics were deliberately, and controversially, aimed at civilian targets.
Your claim that a President Gore would have invaded Afghanistan with more ground troops is more than a little bizarre. The presence of Gore in office would not have changed the operational difficulties of putting US troops in Afghanistan. So your claim is just weird. If its your intention to claim that more US troops would have resulted in Osama Bin Laden's capture, that's a comment that just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about at all.
from VDH
Strange untill you understand the Left is a eternal Enemy of American and westerm culture, and that the alliance the left has made with Wahhabism is little different than the alliance with National Socialist Germany and the Empire of Japan, who had about as much in common with the NAZI as the Baath Socialists and the Wahhabis.
But the left hate Arab Liberals, .. , American commie Liberals are not Liberals .. they are anti-Liberals .. George Orwell wrote about their total inversion, perversity is normalcy, debauchery is virtue, theft is "Social Justice" and leftist Opression is "Liberation".
Dead on ..
Dr Sanity, Separated at Birth adds.
At every turn, the leftist agenda is to work in our instutions to destroy them, the mania about the election and the in your face democrat fraud plays into the destruction of the faith in democracy.
Leftist toxin in our supreme court just abolished the 10th amendment and abolished the limit on federal authority.
Thomas Sowell The high cost of nuances
So, you would think that a reality check would be on display here.
Real Liberals, not commie Liberals, are more in line with Clarence Thomas and Janice Rogers Brown. and if the constitution was respected as it should have been, the Medical pot and the NORMAL people would have scored a victory.
But the commi-Liberals support the federal totalitarians... and they hate both Thomas and Brown, and anyone like them.
Where is the logic, where are the principles ?
In every case their twisted dysfunction puts the fraud label on everything. The reality that distills out is the left are socialism power and hate of Freedom and western culture.
Which of course, shows why they shrug past mass graves of kids and embrace the lords of REAL Gulags, Killing Fields, and rule of the iron boot.
The democrats we see frothing themselves into anger at the good and the decent with language that resounds as calls for violence and "Direct Action", might just be suffering more that that good old leftist projection
They probably know what the judgement would be from normal Americans that more widely understood those creatures, and how they might react to the efforts the left expends to destroy the American way of life.
Perhaps the left is projecting their own doom when the inflection point is reached, and the public understands their true nature.
.
But even that is more leftist projection, while the left dreams of lining up "enemies of the people" imitating Che and his summary executions, Normal Americans dont do that kind of thing, but the left cant allow that reality because it softens the perception of their demons.
.
No, what is happening as America sees underneath the sheepskins, is that they simply stop listening and voting for the left, we are perfectly willing to let them froth and flail about in their madness, just dont ask us to feed and clothe them.
So the question that remains .. if there are any decent Americans in the democrat party, well then what in the hell are they doing there. somebody has to kick somebody out of bed, and as long as they sleep together, nobody is able to tell them apart.
Which brings me back to Dr Sanity and Christopher Hitchens
Something the leftist media, more aware of the impact on political fortunes the democrats are inflicting on themselves, are ernestly attempting to hide from the public, their quote clippers and image polishing cloths smoking with the workload.
In the past, Ive asked decent democrats when they are going to kick the commies out of bed, said that the seperation could have benifitial effects, such as losing the tendency to parrot planks out of the communist manifesto and policies from the CPUSA and Revolutionary worker
Spending so much time sharing your political bed and podium with them does have its affects on you you know, and its unnerving to hear moonbatge interlaced with your thoughts ...
But from here, it looks like the moonbats are kicking YOU out of bed .. there is increasingly less room for the normals, selecting Commie Traitor John Kerry was a signal of that happening, as well as an example of the moral blindness effect on good people that share the bed with evil.
In anycase, they are running the last of the normals out, the stench is past any nose plugs ability to block, the bile beyond any ability to ignore.
Those that remain either be driven off or will fully embrace the dark side of the force.
There will be no "middle" left, inso much as it was a farce to begin with anyway ..
There isnt any such thing as half-commie, Trotski and Stalin are both commies, half slavery is a transition area, its the middle of a busy highway between Ponyang N Korea and Concord, New Hampshire, occupied by tanks trucks and road kill.
In the end, you must choose sides, or else remove yourselves from the kill zone in the cross fire.
There is no middle, except for the rotting dead.
The American Principle, Freedom Liberty Property Equality under a consitutionaly limited law, Classical Liberal Republican Democracy, Narrowly Proscribed authority under the constitutional law of the land, and constitutionaly dispersed power to the states with the most authority closest to the soverien individuals who grant that limited authority as a loan.
Either you support that or you are Americas enemy, Forein or domestic.
Americans are discovering, noticing the excesses of our rulers and the true nature of our adversaries, more every day, there wont be much in the way of safe zone in middle of the battle fields to come.
Battles fought with ballots at home and bullets abroad, with the hard left in control of the democrat party and joining forces with the terrorists, Americas good fortune is to see them find even more commonality in their shared defeat.
.
And with some anger expressed by our pilots in the years afterwards after they came to know their mission was not all to bring sweetness and light.
We dropped their bridges into the river, that you can understand if it was to block the movement of tanks, but why did we bomb the Yugo Auto manf plant ? was they thinking it was retooling to produce military APC's ?
It seemed the bombing was aimed at their civilian economy,, where was "Baby Milk Factory" Peter Arnett ?
I left that and lots more out of my comment 42 as it was long as it was ..
And what about leaving our marines out to dry in Mogadishu ? .. when our marines ask for tanks and gun ships for a mission, you damn well give them tanks and gunships ...
Never again shall our military fight under hand wringing pussy leftists and wear the UN patch on the uniform, they dont care about the wellfare of our troops like we do .. to do so violates the compact between us and those that enlist to serve us, and the minions of the socialist internationale wanting to use our military for their schemes should NEVER be allowed authority of our solgers again.
Even stripping off the USA emplems off our aircraft to replace them with NATO insignia, what an outrage.
I blow steam out my ears every time I recall it.
Frigging feckless america hating democrats dreaming of their one world socialist utopia under the UN .. every time I think about it I want to reach for my glock.
Robin, the US did deploy to Bosnia in 1995, post Dayton under the IFOR banner. Should we have sent ground forces before then? Perhaps. Would it have been a conflict on the scale of Desert Storm or Enduring Freedom? No. Was Bosnia either as obvious or as important a place for large US land intervention as those other two conflicts? No.
LOL. The Republicans hold the high ground on the war on terror is an absolute truth. But as the autopsy of Terri Sciavo shows, they will pander to anything else to maintain power. I wish they would act responsibly at home.
SamAm, keep moving those goalposts.
Robert, the Schiavo case wasn't just about the diagnosis. But I'm sure it looked that way to people who treated the issue superficially.
SamAm, No reason to use troops between Saigon and Kuwait? Do the words "Iranian Hostage Crisis" mean anything to you?
Let's see the Senate Majority Leader, esteemed heart surgeon made a diagnosis on the floor of the Senate from a four year old edited tape to pass a law usurping the rights of Florida which passed a law through the legislature not the courts determining whom has legal rights when a person is incapicated and it is not about the diagnosis. Your right. Frist's diagnosis was wrong and should never have been meade. It is about too many elements of the Republican party sticking its nose in your most private personal business and telling you what to do because they were elected by a group of people whom are directly comparable to the Taliban in how they belive church and state should operate. People whom are guaranteed a right under the Constitution but are determined to say that the Constitution means them only.
Just as to many of the elected Democrats do not understand the GWOT and are in thrall to a far left nomenclature to many elected Republicans are guilty of being in thrall to a far right religious
nomenclature.
Robert M, you completely misrepresent the legislation passed by Congress in the Schiavo case. It did not determine the legal rights of an incapacitated person.
No it completely f@#$% over the rights of the family and who makes decisions for them. That is what the legislation did. Florida passed a law saying the spouse makes the decision and the law was f@#$%& with by the lousy interferring a@@#$%^@ on the right and chicken S*(& democrats who can't keep their nose out of your business.
Karma should have something like this befall you Robin Roberts. I'd loved to see what kind of outrage you would have. Just remember the second amendment allows you to bear arms because when they show up you can do your version of Liddy and deal w/ the blacked booted thugs
Robert,
You really don't have a clue what you are talking about. Congress' legislation just stated that for this case, there could be a review in Federal court of whether or not the state court proceedings had violated the due process rights of Terri Schiavo. (The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to enforce its provisions - and one of its provisions is a requirement that states' observe certain due process rights.)
Just as there exists a right to federal review of a many cases, like the right to habeus corpus review in criminal cases. Probably the part of the act that offended me that most was that it was limited solely to the Schiavo case.
Congress' act did not change the substantive law that Florida was applying - it did not change who had the power to make decisions in these kind of cases - as you falsely state above.