I would suggest, judging by the results of the last election, that Republicans are perceived as being stronger on ill-conceived, poorly-planned, and incompetently-operated invasions of a country that posed no threat to our national security - a country in which the new leaders, in time, very well may do so; stronger on removing the focus from the country that actually did harbor and support the real threat to our national security - a country in which the leaders that did so are making a comeback; stronger on not only aiding and abetting the violation of our constitutional liberties, but urging such violations in order to use the climate of fear merely for their own political purposes; stronger on making us the land of the not-so-free and the home of the terrified.
Eisenhower brought the term into the national arena in his farewell address in January of 1961 and played down its significance after that.
The people that use the term as a righteous accusation are the ones I’m talking about.
I addressed the election in Post #80. As for the future, which party and political philosophy benefits if there is another terrorist attack on American soil?
Neither.
Are you serious? If you are an educated and intelligent person you know the strategic and economic reasons behind the post WWII buildup of the American military.
If you don’t understand or disagree with them, you are letting your ideology get in the way.
Strategic reasons, yes. Economic reasons? Who cares? Is it not a conservative viewpoint that those who lose their jobs due to market changes can just go to work at Burger King?
Things could and should have been done differently in planning for Iraq, Frank. Other than that, the points you raise have been endlessly debated and interpreted ad nasuem until everyone can fit the facts into their ideological comfort zone.
That said, I have a sincere question for you. How do you feel about the military in general?
You think so? After 9/11, the size, strength and influence of the military and the CIA skyrocketed. People were concerned about security and safety like never before.
If a Democrat is elected and another 9/11 scale attack happens after nothing on Bush’s watch, the effect on the party will be catastrophic.
We’ve already got a Democratic Party in that mold. What you want is a Democratic Party that’s more like the GOP:
Which is understandable, but most of us Dems would rather be Dems. And frankly, it’s our business when to risk defeat by standing on principle, and when to compromise principles for electoral success.
It’s been my observation for some time that unless and until people know you have principles, and know what they are, compromising your position doesn’t help you either with your base or with the people you’d like to win over.
And if you ask me, a refusal to sacrifice the lives of our troops in order to win elections is a damned important principle. I can’t imagine what goes through the head - or heart - of someone who suggests that principle be compromised. Goddamn it, these are real men and women, with lives and loved ones. Who should be widowed, what child should be left fatherless, so the Dems can win an election?
It’s horrible enough that the Party of Evil has for years pursued this route. Kindly leave us Dems out of such abominable conduct.
Are you referring to the idea that government “management” of the economy is a bad idea? Wealth redistribution and the other ideas of “socialism lite” have been tried before…the more the government interferes the worse things usually get.
You can’t even seem to keep your terms straight, because now you’re claiming that it’s liberals who are soft on defense. But earlier in the thread, you said it was accurate to say that Democrats are soft on defense. Which is it?
I have, in general, no problem with the military. I have issues, one of which is the amount of money it sucks from the GDP, which, if you explore matters, was the reason the U.S.S.R. fell - they couldn’t afford it anymore. I’d hate to see us go down that road.
I believe that we need no more of a standing army than is necessary to protect our borders. That army should be fully and sufficiently manned, armed, and trained to perform that duty.
Should it be necessary to wage an offensive war, we can gear up for that just as we did in WWII. A large and idle standing army is merely an invitation to politicians to find something to do with it.
No, no, not at all. I am vaguely socialist. 
I’m referring to the (assumed) argument that not supporting a large military, and it’s associated large defense contractors, would be bad for the economy of the U.S., as the large defense contractors would have to downsize or go out of business. Let me know if I assumed wrong.
“Nothing” on Bush’s watch? WTF? 9/11 itself, the most catastrophic terror attack ever to occur on American soil, happened on Bush’s watch.
It really puzzles me why many conservatives don’t seem to consider that a major black mark against the Bush administration’s record when it comes to national security. I suspect that a lot of them simply aren’t aware that the administration had received several serious warnings about terrorism dangers prior to 9/11, and they’ve swallowed the “Nobody could have predicted” propaganda.
I was referring to the political reality we all woke up to on 9/12.
As to the finger-pointing over 9/11, that has been done to death. We all have facts that we can point to that will give us comfort.
How about the Navy to keep the sea lanes (and commerce) flowing? How about the deterrent factor that comes with a large and capable military?
I believe that our current standard of living is due in large part to the presence and performance of our military since the beginning of WWII. The economic contribution of defense contractors didn’t enter into my equation.
In the two-party system in its current form, liberals and Democrats either are or perceived to be one and the same. To be clear, I believe that it is committed ideological liberals who are soft on defense…and the further left they are, the more that’s true.
The problem for the democrats is the perception that the guy dancing outside the nuclear power plant in a skull mask is a democrat, whether he is or not.
Not really. You acknowledged the huge Democratic win, asked the rhetorical question “Is this what America really wants?”, and answered it No. Which is, of course, NOT consistent with the demonstrated facts. Now try again. Explain why the “soft on defense” people won so big, if that is the losing position you claim it is. If you can.
It’s become clear to all but the most Kool-Aid-poisoned by now, as the very recent elections also demonstrate, that our continuing to stir up the Iraqi civil war we created has worsened the danger to us from the factions who are inclined to use terror (the word “terrorist” is misleading, ya know - terror is not a philosophy but a tactic). So, if Bush lets another 9/11 happen, like the one his disconnectedness with reality allowed the first time, no question who gets the blame. How the hell could you think otherwise? By confusing what you *want * to be true with what *is * true, a propensity you’ve demonstrated quite clearly in this thread?
Because the majority of Americans are not educated on the issues and nuances of current events and politics. We all participate on this board, debating issues in detail that most americans are not interested in or capable of. The democratic win was in large part because the aftermath of the war was not planned as well as it should have been and things have gone badly since. The 15 percent of the moderates in the middle leaned to the Democrats and put them over the top. It wasn’t because millions were converted to the holy light. If the Democrats display any of the distasteful stereotypes that burden them, the moderates will abandon them.
I said that if no attacks happen for the rest of GWB’s presidency and then comes after a democrat is elected to the presidency it would be a disaster for the democrats. Once again, it will be the moderates who will make that happen. If my scenario actually comes to pass, partisans on both sides will simply reverse the arguments they used against Bush and Clinton over 9/11.
I deliberately did not capitalize army. I was referring to a standing military.
Do you not feel that having a (ahem) standing army that can fully protect our country while we prepare for a long war is enough of a deterrent? Then I suspect we (surprise) disagree. I want a military which can defend my country. No less, no more. I want it to defend us sufficiently during the period it takes for Boeing to switch production from passenger planes to fighters and bombers, the period it takes for GM and Ford to switch from cars to tanks, the period it takes for the military recruiters to switch from begging to get-in-line-over-there.
Ah, I did misunderstand.
I also feel like offensive and quick strike cababilities (carriers, bombers) prevent mischief before it happens. One of the reasons we have relative peace is that everyone knows who wins if push comes to shove. To scale back to a defense only posture invites someone else to fill the vacuum with intent that would not be in our best interest. If we followed that plan after WWII for example, the Soviet Union would own most of the world.