Houston Democrats

Do not expect to meet FRANKLIN's challenge, "a republic, if you can keep it," with the military institutions of the British empire grafted onto the present sham of irresponsible, one-party, government.

That is where we are. Of course, the GOP can pursue folly with a British "long-term hire" military but without any fiscal constraints or political accountability at all, oh, and no effective opposition at any level of government.

That said, a "return to the draft" -- "Selective Service", to be precise -- is no answer.

Remember, that was a thoroughly racist system designed, in fact, to disarm black soldiers who comprised much of the pre-WWI military. By the end of the draft, US armed forces were racially progressive but economically discriminatory and, in any event, politically unmanageable.

That was before the end of the Great, World, and Cold Wars as well as a "transformation of war" in general and, now, what is known as "Fourth Generation Warfare". There is no going back to the recent past.

4GW does cry out today for a universal military obligation coterminous with a no less universal franchise -- the very foundation of republican democracy.

Of course, the GOP is against that universality and uniformity: It offends their beliefs in an armed minority comprised of the Elect of God as well as of voluntary taxation. Remember during the campaign? The idiot-left was screaming that Bush would reinstate the draft? No. These people will nuke Iran first. They get more radical as they fail.

There, of course, is the problem: The pacifist left, "progressive Republicans a century ago -- and the Vichy Democrats are both, for their own peculiar reasons, perfectly willing to cede US armed forces to the other party, the Navalists, Neo-Cons, and Mercenaries, rather than embrace the very foundations of this party, the anti-Federalist party, the Bill of Rights Party: Those are the principle of a limited government based first and last on a well regulated militia.

That is a Roman, Swiss, Israeli, not an Anglo-American, notion.

We basically followed it from 1800 to 1860. But, the USA and CSA abandoned those precepts during and after the Civil War, especially after the end of Reconstruction and the beginning of the modern, Jim Crow, era of, first, Navalism and, now, Neo-Con Imperialism.

Both Gary HART on the left and Wm. S. LIND on the right have noted the present folly and offered an alternative to our rank-inflated, long-term hire military today or to any fall-back on selective service. But, almost nobody in either party pays any attention at all to such serious thought.

The left and right fringes have excluded from debate all but the Vichy Democrats, who just sit in the soft, corrupt middle trying to negotiate deals with the extremes.

There is no center and, at this rate, there will be no republic.

Well, John, Ron agrees with you on this as he has expressed this sentiment to me on more than one occasion. I, however, disagree completely. The wealthy would STILL find a way to keep their children out of harm's way, and it would STILL be the poor and middle class fighting and dying in Iraq. I am not willing to send my son and daughter into a foreign country to kill and be killed or maimed in order for Bush and his thug buddies to make more money and control the Iraqi oil supply. That's what this whole so called war is about anyway, and both parties, Republican and Democratic, have been to blame for this illegal invasion. A draft was instituted in the Vietnam era and many thousands died and were injured. Ron was drafted and never agreed with the Vietnam War. What he should've done was told the draft board or whomever you report to to go f*** off. He should've done his prison time or whatever, or he should've gone into hiding. Luckily for him he didn't have to go to Vietnam where I'm sure he would've killed people and possibly got injured or killed himself for a war he never agreed with.

This whole business of war is merely a way for a group of people to enrich themselves at the expense of another group of people. In my opinion, war is always wrong unless it is waged to protect one's own country, which this war was never waged for, or to end genocide in another country.

A draft will not solve a damned thing. It will only serve to get more people killed and hurt on both sides. I cannot for the life of me understand why the soldiers don't just lay down their arms and refuse to kill another person. Perhaps many of them feel they are doing the patriotic thing by killing so called insurgents who are thwarting democracy in Iraq. Perhaps many of them still believe they are avenging the deaths on September 11th. Perhaps some of them feel it would be insubordinate to disobey orders. Perhaps some truly enjoy killing and maiming people. Whatever the reason, American soldiers are not laying down arms and walking away from this catastrophe as they should be. If enough of them refused to fight, this war would be over. There has to be some percentage of soldiers who KNOW that what they are doing in Iraq is wrong. I don't understand this whole military mindset. I had someone tell me over dinner the other night that the soldiers are brainwashed by the military. They don't think for themselves. They simply do what they are told. That is so foreign to me. I can't imagine a person simply following orders even unto torturing people, killing and maiming men, women and children who are/were no threat to us, destroying a nation's infrastructure, using banned chemical weapons on a city of civilians etc etc etc.

I don't buy this "Well, I was just following orders" crap. I'm very sorry for all the American lives that have been lost in this war, however, I'm even more sorry for all the thousands of innocent Iraqis whose lives have been shattered and lost even since the Clinton administration. These people's lives have been ruined and their cities ruined for the last several years under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Let's face it people. Our government is corrupt and rotting from the inside out. Politicians in both parties are bought and paid for. I don't know what it's going to take to get the majority of Congress to wake up and get the hell out of Iraq, but I can tell you one thing: it sure as hell isn't reinstating a draft and having a huge uprising of American citizens. I don't believe you can solve the problem of war and needless death by inviting more war and needless death into the mix.

Right on, John and let's start the Draft list with the military age children...first of Congressional Republicans followed by Congressional Democrats who continue to support this obscene war, including Chelsea Clinton.

Congressional Democrats supporting this war by your silence and avoidance of the core issue......how do we get out of there without leaving a bloodbath behind? Start with a massive peacekeeping force comprised of some combination of Arab League, UN, EU and NATO peacekeepers, backed up by the "strike force" Murtha suggests if it is necessary to root out continued insurget murder squads striking their own innocent citizens.

H.Clinton, J. Biden and J.Lieberman- you are leading the congressional contingent advocating the Bush plan plus more troops and stifling the will of the majority of your own Party who want this horror to end and tying the hands of our Party Chair you have put in an untenable position between we at the grassroots and you elites in the Senate and your neo-liberal advisors in the DC think tanks. Shame. The National Democratic Party has a well earned reputation for cynical political positions based on your mis-perception that we Democrats will be judged as "weak" on security if we depart Iraq.....or will have "squandered" an empire-enhancing opportunity by leaving. And your mis-judgment in supporting Bush's war further amplifies the rap that we Democrats have no moral core. A moral position is one that admits error and asks for forgiveness and sets things right with an admission that further sacrifice of our young military hero would serve no grander purpose than justifying your ill-informed judgement. To do any less diminishes your already non-existent leadership of our Party.

I agree with you John. I have thought for a long time that the Draft would slow down our rush to war.

We all know a draft would NEVER happen, but (and here comes my big but....)

But...if Congress would stand up and tell Americans they have to either pony up or shut up, guess what would happen?

We would have a riot in Washington with all the so-called patriots protesting the war.

And that is how we stop it.

A draft would then not be necessary.

Thank GOD there are enough brave Americans out there to fight for our country so we would not be stuck with the likes of you people defending us. One question: What is your answer to fighting terrorism, ignoring it like the previous administration did? We all see how that worked out.

A draft is still a good idea. I don't think we have exhausted our supply of war loving politicians. We need the draft in order to try to keep the next one from doing something stupid.

Unless Congress returns to the practice of declaring war, the Draft is not an answer. True, the Reserve and National Guard are undermanned, but this is the result of massive budget and manpower reductions by Congress over a period of time.
In the 70's, Reserve and Guard forces took over much of the National Defense burden; in the 80's and early 90's, the budget axe hit the Reserves (e.g. Bergstrom and Kelly AFB). Recently (for the first time ever) National Guard units were disbanded. The current manpower shortage is a self-inflicted injury, curable by other means than a return to the Draft.
NOTE: I was drafted in 1956; I didn't like it. However, I subsequently spent a total of 36 years active-duy and Reserve time. I still don't like the Draft.

Hum.....looks like Jenifer Diamico thinks Iraq was about terrorism.

Wonder why she hasnt enlisted to help our soldiers in Iraq. Or sign up her own kids.

Chicken *hit.

What is your answer to fighting terrorism?

This might be difficult for you to grasp, Jennifer, so I'll type it s-l-o-w-l-y ...

Catching and killing Osama bin Laden.

Any other questions?

Yea. Like Duh.

Morans.

Hum.....looks like Jenifer Diamico thinks Iraq was about terrorism.

Wonder why she hasnt enlisted to help our soldiers in Iraq. Or sign up her own kids.

Chicken *hit.

Posted by: John Cobarruvias at November 22, 2005 04:51 PM

Classy Mr. Cobararruvias, very classy. How do you know what my Military history is?
Typical do-nothing liberal response to a valid question; deflect with childish personal attacks.

What is your answer to fighting terrorism?

This might be difficult for you to grasp, Jennifer, so I'll type it s-l-o-w-l-y ...

Catching and killing Osama bin Laden.

Any other questions?

Posted by: PDiddie at November 22, 2005 05:24 PM

And what if he is found, caught and killed in Iraq? Will you then cede the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Or do we need to kill him and Al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq; Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who openly takes credit for terrorism?

Of course there are no ties right gentlemen?

What is your answer to fighting terrorism?

This might be difficult for you to grasp, Jennifer, so I'll type it s-l-o-w-l-y ...

Catching and killing Osama bin Laden.

Any other questions?

Posted by: PDiddie at November 22, 2005 05:24 PM

And what if he is found, caught and killed in Iraq? Will you then cede the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Or do we need to kill him and Al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq; Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who openly takes credit for terrorism?

Of course there are no ties right gentlemen?

And what if he is found, caught and killed in Iraq?

Then I'll buy you a pink elephant and a lifetime supply of GOP Kool-Aid.

Thanks for playing.

I have a grandson, my youngest, in Iraq as I write. He is a white, middle class, young man.
I do not presume to speak for him, and have not discussed with him his reasons for enlisting, at least not yet.

I have sent him an e-mail, supporting his decision, and hoping, since it was a voluntary move, that it was an informed decision, made knowing where he was going, and what he would have to do when he got there. Since his parents are divorced, and he has lived primarily with his mother in a distant state, my up close and personal time with my oldest son's only son, has been a little limited.

Which is why, when his only sister told me about it on the phone, it was a little surprising. I have a lot of respect for his
mother, who is highly religious and has done the best she could for her children. It was also an accomplished fact. He was already in NY, waiting to be deployed.

I mentioned in the e-mail that we would have assisted him as best we could, with ANY decision he made regarding his future. I also asked for an APO box, so that we may send socks, or brownies, or whatever. My only brother, and the baby of the family, a Vietnam vet, advises packing them in popcorn and sending a lot of them, so he can swap them for beer, if that's what he wants to do.

I have not yet received a response, and may never. Who knows?? In any event, I also said that both sides of his father's family tree (I can't say about his mother's family, as I don't know)shows many warriors. Warriors who were scholar/historian/soldiers; some who were on the winning side in the War for Texas Independence (at San Jacinto); one who was a chaplain to the losing side of the War Between The States;
and every other war anybody ever had since my father's people landed in Virginia in 1608, and my mother's people met the boat.

They were on the wrong side of a few, and they lost. They had to relocate or migrate or whatever people do when they lose a war, whether they wanted to be in it or not; they were.

They've won more than they lost. During WW II, I had great-uncles, uncles and cousins by the dozen, scattered all over the planet, in every branch of the military. Thank God, they all came back safely, which is amazing in itself.

Then, there was Korea. We lost an uncle-by-marriage in the landing on the first day, in June of 1950. He was a Captain, from east Texas, and his body was never found. I was in high school.

Three years later, I married the father of my children, home from Korea, a west Texas native, and a little older (and far more cynical and worldly-wise than I). After thirteen years, and six children, we dissolved the union. It just wasn't working for anyone, least of all the children.

Then came Vietnam. My uncle, career air force, was still in the service, not in Vietnam. He was still involved, as he was in the Berlin airlift and a severe earthquake in Alaska,during that era. His job was getting supplies to the front, by way of his logistical genius.

Then my only brother enlisted. To see the world, to get away from home, to get some college money, etc. He made the highest score on the Navy entrance test that had ever been posted in Dallas, Tx.

The Navy sent him through boot camp, where he promptly got pneumonia on a night training mission on a beach in California. He went on to electronics schools for 2 years (in his spare time, he also drew guard duty for obsolete aircraft, in snow storms in Memphis and
Virginia).

When he was assigned to a nuclear-powered battleship, the USS Independence, 6th Fleet, Atlantic ocean duty, he got to see Italy, Germany,
(on leave) and many other places that his uncles, great-uncles and cousins had served during WW II.

Then the War in Vietnam heated up, and the 6th Fleet was sent to the Pacific Theater, Vietnam. Had I not been a mother, I would have joined. Instead I moved to Tulsa, to McDonnell-Douglas, to work as an expediter in the procurement of parts used in the modification and repair of military aircraft. I called myself providing air cover for my baby brother. It was also an industry that paid a living wage for women, a rarity at the time.

And, oh yes, my aunt (of whom we were so proud!)served as a Nurse during WW II. She was a vision in white; white uniform, starched white cap, white stockings and shoes, and a navy blue cape, lined with red. Our current nurses, my youngest daughter; and my brother's oldest daughter, also serve, just not in the military.

Therefore, I do not question my grandson's right to make his own decisions. Nor do I criticize the way he was reared, his education, and the opportunites available to him in small-town middle America. Young men have many reasons for joining the military. My grandson had his, and there was "a War on" when he did it.

Now he is there, this young man that I barely know. But he is my blood, my kin, and I have loved him since the day he was born. Women do that, you know, and have done so since the beginning of time. If I were not his kin, I would still love him.

Women who are not mothers (my aunt wasn't, my daughter isn't), still love fiercely and serve proudly, and care for sick, injured, maimed and hurting people where ever they find them. Mothers Superior, and not; Mother Teresa, and her staff, Florence Nighingale, Clara Barton.

The message here?? I wouldn't play too rough with Jennifer, guys. At least not until you can say here that you have read every single line of
Rudyard Kipling's classic poem "The Female of the Species", twice. And, if you still don't get it,
I'll be more than happy to explain it to you, AGAIN. I say again, because I believe that I have already done so here.

And, I consider myself to be a financially conservative, socially liberal (to a degree), informed citizen of the United States of America. I will wear no other label. I also believe tolerance for the views of other inhabitants of the planet is in very short supply. Any topic brings out the radicals on all ten sides of every question.

I believe in the rights of individuals, and groups, to live their lives in whatever style they choose, as long as they injure no other individual, in any other group. If every one on the planet tended only to their own segment of it, ("my corner"), and every one else did the same thing, then eventually, the world would become a better place.

I do not mean to imply isolationism; good people go all over the world to help others in distress, and that's as it should be. They are citizens of the world and they do make a difference. Whether they should try to indoctrinate as they innoculate, is a question for another day and column.

Have a super Day, turkeys! Hope your football team wins...they might, if the parents of the players raised them right, they have a good coach, and the owner has put his money where his mouth is, instead of his ugly old mug in the spotlight!

A solution to the Iraq War. So many are jumping on the talking points of the whitehouse saying "Democrats dont have a plan".

Well, that is BS. We do have a plan. Here it is:

1) Fire Rumsfeld. Get him as far away from the military as possible. Revoke his clearance.

2) Immediately ask the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate who gave Congress false information that lead to the invasion.

3) Start the draft so every red blooded flag waving American can feel the pain of war.

4) Start a War tax to pay for the war until a withdrawal is complete.

5) Set a time frame (not a time table) with specific goals for withdrawal.

6) Stop construction of all 14 bases in Iraq

7) Immediately withdraw from specific cities and use these as an example of how to withdraw from Iraq. Closely monitor to measure the success of the withdrawl and any violence.

8) Ask for UN support to replace the troops and maintain peace.

9) Impeach bush.

There Jennifer. What is your plan? Stay the course?

You Kool-Aid drinkers are not keeping up with current events:

The President's Daily Briefing on Sept 21, 2001, just 10 days after 911, told Bush that there was no relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, EXCEPT Sadaam was considering infiltrating them to make sure they were not targeting Iraq! And that there was NO responsibility for 911 by Iraq.

Sadaam considered Al Qaeda as an enemy of Iraq.

Of course, this was one of those little facts that bush decided not to share with Congress. The rest is history.

If you intend to debate with facts, it is a good idea to know them first. http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm

Oh....Bush has refused to give this brief to the Intelligence Committee. Imagine that.

Jennifer:

I can certainly understand your point of view and how important it is to pay lip service to beliefs which do not require you to do more than typing "you don't know me" type comments with no real substance to back them on a keyboard while striving to appear mature and strong in your pupport of the well-dressed deserter from the Texas National Guard who got an honorable discharge because of his father and his 5-deferrment fellow drunk. It is so nice to see such people held up as real American patriots while they attack decorated military people who have actually done more than hide from their obligations.

As a 5th generation Texan, I have to say that it is so very nice to see real open-mindedness in action among our Red citizens.

By-the-Way, are Republicans aware that Red is the color of Communism, and 50 years of "Better Dead than Red" comments from the GOP?

Just curious.

John:

Nice piece about the Draft. I did my 22 years, and I agree; draft them all without deferrment.

Mr. Cobarruvious,

You are accusing ME of drinking the Kool-Aid? Check out your cherry red mustache in the mirror once in a while. Tell me address your "plan".

1) Fire Rumsfeld. Get him as far away from the military as possible. Revoke his clearance.

What does that do? The Military leaders on the ground all support him.

2) Immediately ask the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate who gave Congress false information that lead to the invasion.

Will this special prosecutor have the authority to investigate the world's collective intelligence (including the U.N.)?

3) Start the draft so every red blooded flag waving American can feel the pain of war.

Just so others can feel pain? The Military leaders on the ground don't want more troops unless they are allowed to use more force which the politicians won't allow. (ala Vietnam)

4) Start a War tax to pay for the war until a withdrawal is complete.

And how does that help? Why not cut current wasteful Government spending?

5) Set a time frame (not a time table) with specific goals for withdrawal.

As much as you on the left like this read hearing it's just plain political spin. Try to stop taking your blood pressure medicine on a time frame instead of when your body no longer requires it.

6) Stop construction of all 14 bases in Iraq

And what will that do? Should we close down ALL bases on foreign soil as well? How about South Korea, Germany,etc.?

7) Immediately withdraw from specific cities and use these as an example of how to withdraw from Iraq. Closely monitor to measure the success of the withdrawal and any violence.

Check out the 15 other provinces in Iraq that are relatively safe that the media ignores. (safer than most of the "blue" cities here in the U.S. I might add)

8) Ask for UN support to replace the troops and maintain peace.

The U.N. was asked before the war started and has been invited ever since. In fact one of the main reasons the coalition is there is because the U.N. wouldn't enforce it's own resolutions. (not to mention 10 years of our Air Force being shot at by the Iraq's at the no fly zone.)

9) Impeach bush.

Clinton held all of the same beliefs, should we have added bombing an aspirin factory In Iraq to his list of impeachable offenses?

There Jennifer. What is your plan? Stay the course?

To that I say yes. Let the Military leaders on the ground continue advising the President and run the war. I just wish they would use more force, less politics. (something the media won't ask when they do their polling, I wonder why)

And so your plan?

Stay the course.

Yea. It's been working real good so far. How about you joining up for this honorable duty in Iraq?

You righties have nothing but excuses. No plan. No ideas. No defense. No honor. No sense. Just lame excuses that are costing lives.

You haven't taken responsibility for a single thing, blaming everything on 911, Iraq, and Clinton in that order.

You guys whine more than a Senior without a date to the prom.

Mr. Cobarruvias,

I see plenty of progress in the War on terrorism. We haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11 have we? Instead of talking to people who just hate the President, talk to the overwhelming majority of soldiers who have served in Iraq (relisting in record numbers I might add)They will tell you about the progress. Us "righties" support our troops while all you do support what Bin Laden wrote that you would support; cowardism.

Ms. Diamico, I support the troops by insisting that they be brought home immediately and are never again put in harm's way except as a last resort and never for a pack of lies like these: WMD, AL-QAEDA/IRAQ CONNECTION, IRAQI FREEDOM, BUILDING DEMOCRACY. It is interesting to note that the Iraqi government agrees with me. In the recent meeting of the Arab League in Cairo the President of Iraq signed a communique calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops by mid 2006. The communique also deplored the acts of terrorism against Iraqi civilians by ALL sides but recognized the insurgent's right to resist the occupation by foreign troops with force.

When are you going to understand this simple fact? The most powerful nation on earth has premptively attacked a weaker, war weary, sovereign state under false pretenses so that it could steal its oil and promote a "new world order". I urge you to question the party line and open your mind to the truth. Even now, it is finding the light of day! Your cause (whatever it is) is doomed.

Mr. Graham,

I think its funny that you Democrats are saying what the Bush Administration has been saying for 3 years: We will begin to stand down when the Iraqi's can stand up.

December 15 the Iraqi's will hold important elections without your support (something you Democrats said they never will be able to do) so know the Democrats are going to try to say they prompted troop withdrawl.

The Sunni's, Kurds, and Shiites are working together without your support (something you Democrats said they never will be able to do)

15 of the 18 Iraqi' provinces are safer than most of the "Blue" cities in America. (something you Democrats said they never will be able to do)

60% of the elible voters in Iraq turned out to vote for a ratification of their constitution (something you Democrats said they never will be able to do)

All of these milestones have been reached in 3 short years in a country that has been under a dictatorship for decades and all your side does is try to obstruct the progress.

The troops remember what you do (check reenlistment and 2004 Presidential vote stats), the Iraqi people will remember, and so will history.

The Democrats are the party of obstruction because they can't win at the ballot box.

This man put's it all in perspective:

November 23, 2005, 8:24 a.m.
The Crying Game
So near in Iraq, so far at home.

"The president misled us." "Still no WMDs." "If I had only known then what I do now…"

This is the intellectual level of Democratic wartime criticism about the Bush administration as we near the third Iraqi election — the one that will finally give faces to the first truly elected parliamentary government in the Arab world.

So what is behind this crying game at home — when we are so close to achieving our goals abroad?

Bad polls and far-worse casualties. With over 2,000 American dead in Iraq, the politicians think their own brilliant three-week war was ruined by George Bush’s 32-month failed reconstruction.

But the Democratic establishment’s anger is even more complicated than that since it is not yet quite sure of the mood of the fickle American people.

True, from the very beginning a small group of leftists has done its best to mischaracterize the effort to remove Saddam Hussein as some sort of Halliburton, “no-blood-for oil,” “Bush lied/thousands died,” “neocon” war “for Israel.” But despite the occasional auxiliary efforts of the elite press, until now there were really no takers in the mainstream Democratic party for the vehement antiwar crowd’s slander for at least three reasons.

One was the crazies. By that I mean that the Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Cindy Sheehan factions have a propensity to go lunatic and say or do anything — like shamefully praising the murdering terrorists who blow apart Iraqi women and children and U.S. soldiers as "Minutemen,” or calling the president of the United States “the world’s greatest terrorist.”

A sanctimonious Jimmy Carter may sit next to the buffoonish Michael Moore at the Democratic Convention in VIP seats, but the inclusion of his name with Rep. John Murtha’s is still apparently considered by liberals to be an outright slander. So up until now invoking Bush as a "liar" and our enemies as "heroes" was considered over the top.

Two, the Democratic left wing was wrong on the Cold War and mostly wrong on Gulf War I. With minorities in the Congress, fearful that they might never again be trusted on national security, and cognizant that both Bill Clinton’s campaign against Milosevic and George Bush’s war against the Taliban had been relatively cost-free, they outdid themselves in calling for invasion of Iraq.

Go back and read any of the statements of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, or Jay Rockefeller about the dangers of Saddam Hussein and the need to take him out. Only then can you understand why the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly, with a strong Democratic majority, to authorize a war.

So up until now, Democrats had an embarrassing paper trail that in the era of Google searches made it hard to claim that the war was Bush’s alone and not their own. Indeed, as long as casualties were considered "tolerable" and the polls stable, most Democrats continued to talk in accordance with their own past votes and wanted to bask in the success of ending the Hussein nightmare.

Three, most Democrats knew the history of the George McGovern pullout campaign of 1972 that ended in disaster for the party at large. It just isn’t smart to lose American wars by cutting out — unless you have a Watergate for cover. Yet so far not outing a CIA employee who was not a covert agent does not make a scandal.

For all the media pizzazz about the peace candidate Howard Dean, the good Dr. had not a prayer of winning either the nomination or the presidency. Indeed, his tenure as chairman of the Democratic party has been a Republican godsend, since, like McGovern, he has the propensity in a single moment of heartfelt sincerity to scare the hell out of the American people.

Thus the savvy strategy as the casualties grew was to quibble, ankle-bite, and offer empty platitudes like “Get the U.N. back there,” “Get NATO in,” and “Get the Arab League on board,” rather than offering an ad hoc alternative plan of leaving Iraq in the style of Vietnam, Lebanon, or Mogadishu.

Two of those reservations have now vanished, as George Bush’s flight suit; the museum looting; Saddam’s public dental exam; the embalming of the Hussein boys; naked pictures from Abu Ghraib; a supposedly flushed Koran in Guantanamo Bay; rants on the Senate floor; the Scooter Libby indictment; comparisons of the U.S. military to Saddam Hussein; Nazi Germany; Stalin; and Pol Pot; the broadsides of Joe Wilson; Richard Clarke; General Anthony Zinni; Brent Scowcroft; Lawrence Wilkerson, et al.; lies that our soldiers targeted Western journalists; the meae culpae of prominent former war supporters from Francis Fukuyama to George Packer; white phosphorus; leaks about supposed CIA torture prisons abroad — along with mostly silence from the embattled administration and U.S. combat dead exceeding 2,000 — have changed the political calculus.

So Democrats have overcome two caveats. First, they are beginning to sound like Michael Moore while distancing themselves from Michael Moore. Second, they have come up with a clever escape ploy from their own previous rhetoric. Yes, they voted for the war, but the intelligence they had was “not the same” as the president’s. And besides, they were merely senators who fund wars, while George Bush was the commander-in-chief who directs them. “He started it — not us” may be the stuff of errant boys on the playground, but it apparently offers a way out of past embarrassing speeches and votes. Even more clever, they now claim that voting “to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq” in October 2002 is not quite the same as actually authorizing a war in March 2003.

Consequently, the Democrats are now inching toward jettisoning their final reservation and embracing the Howard Dean cut-and-run position. Still, shrewd pros like a Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, or Chuck Schumer are not quite there yet for two other understandable worries. The polls say Americans are tired of the war, but not yet ready to quit and give up on all that has been achieved, leaving brave Iraqi reformers to ninth-century beheaders and suicide-murderers.

Second, these more astute Democrats are not sure that the Iraqi gambit might not work, especially with the December election coming up, the public trial of Saddam, the growth of the Iraqi security forces, and the changed attitudes in Europe, Jordan, and Lebanon. Many talk a lot about Vietnam circa 1967 but deep down and in silence most have mixed emotions about Saigon 1975.

For now Democrats stammer, sputter, and go the Bush shoulda / coulda route — not quite ready to take the McGovern sharp turn, forever waiting on polls and events on the ground in Iraq, always unsure whether peace and democracy will come before the 2,500th American fatality.

Yet as they hedge — on television praising Congressmen Murtha who advocates withdrawal, but making sure they vote overwhelmingly on the record to reject his advice — they should consider some critical questions.

First, are the metrics of this war in the terrorists’ or our favor? Are the Iraqi security forces growing or shrinking? Are elections postponed or on schedule? Are Europe, Jordan, Lebanon, and others more or less sympathetic to a war against Islamic terrorism in Iraq? Are bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Zarqawi more or less popular or secure after we removed Saddam? Is al Qaeda in a strengthened or weakened position? Is the Arab world more or less receptive to democracy in the Gulf, Egypt, Lebanon, and the West Bank? And is the United States more or less vulnerable to a terrorist attack as we go into our fifth year since September 11?

I ask those questions in all sincerity since the conventional wisdom — compared to the true wisdom and compassion of those valiantly fighting the terrorists under the most impossible of conditions — is that we are losing in Iraq, our enemies are emboldened, and the Arab world has turned against us. But if we forget the banality of New York Times columnists, the admonitions of NPR experts, and the daily rants of a Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, or Al Gore, more sober and street-smart Democrats are in fact not so sure of these answers.

So these wiser ones wait and hedge their wagers. They give full rein to the usefully idiotic and irresponsible in their midst, but make no move yet to undo what thousands of brave American soldiers have accomplished in Iraq.

What exactly is that? Despite acrimony at home, the politics of two national elections and a third on the horizon, and the slander of war crimes and incompetence, those on the battlefield of Iraq have almost pulled off the unthinkable — the restructuring of the politics of the Middle East in less than three years.

And for now that is still a strong hand to bet against.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. His latest book is A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.

We have been fed a pack of lies from the beginning. You are still feeding them to the uninformed with crap from the Hoover (rethug) Institute. This isn't about democracy in Iraq (which isn't happening). It isn't about fighting a war on 'terra'. It is about the old Republican standby, greed, and the new Republican mantra, world domination. The rich get richer and the poor people of Iraq and America are dying for their cause. And stop with the "How unpatriotic Democrats are by NOT supporting our troops!" message. You are talking to an old veteran. That doesn't fly with me.

You wrote, "The troops remember what you do (check reenlistment and 2004 Presidential vote stats), the Iraqi people will remember, and so will history."

Is that supposed to be a threat? Hell, I can't think of a better outcome.

Mr. Graham,

Stop embarrassing yourself with childish name-calling. If you want to have a debate please provide intelligent responses instead of rhetoric.

Jennifer,

I don't think Ron is embarrassing himself at all. It is you who is the embarrassment. If I were as ignorant of the facts as you are I wouldn't open my mouth. How can anyone have a debate with the likes of you? You merely repeat Rethug talking points and chant their lies like a mantra.

Go get yourself informed, Jennifer, and quit watching Fox News, ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN. They are corporate owned and operated and those same corporations give heavily to the Republican Party and to Bush. They are merely apologists and mouthpieces for the Bush cabal. Why don't you go to international news sources for your news? Why don't you visit websites like Buzzflash, Common Dreams, Project for the Old American Century etc? You buy into the lies and propaganda that the Bush cabal sells. It's pitiful, really.

Try not to embarrass yourself further, Jennifer, by posting your naivete and ignorance for all the world to see.

Jennifer writes "I see plenty of progress in the War on terrorism. We haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11 have we?"

Now that is RICH! Hell, we didn't have a terrorist attack UNTIL 9/11, one day after W was on a 5 week vacation.

Hey....if lazy ass wasnt on a 5 week vacation or bothered to read his PDBs, we wouldnt be in a war.

Of course I doubt you will post this but:

From Mark Silverman:

Only Resolve is Respected

In the Arab world, only resolve is respected. Outrage can be generated against America by portraying America to the Arab masses as a bully. But to physically attack America (as happened on 9/11), or American interests abroad (as in the cases of the embassy bombings and the USS Cole), requires that America also be depicted as weak and vulnerable. It is this perception of America, in the eyes of the Arab world, that represents the greatest threat to Western civilization because Arab misperceptions about America have led to wars.

Acts of terrorism are encouraged by the belief that America is essentially weak, vulnerable, and capable of being brought to its knees by a high body-bag count before it has achieved its strategic objectives. It has been this perceived “softness” that has encouraged terrorists like al Qaeda and rogue nations like Iraq, Iran and Syria to act against America and American interests abroad. In the Middle Eastern mindset, it is fatal for any nation to be perceived as weak and vulnerable.

And, in many ways, our actions and reactions have led to their perceptions. The explosion of Islamic terror and the threats of mass destruction from an Iraqi tyrant armed with nuclear or biological weapons could have been prevented.

For example, in the 90’s, the decade of denial, hesitation and prevarication, U.S. foreign policy consisted of Bill Clinton desperately seeking a legacy, running America by opinion polls, sending cruise missiles to blow up empty tents in the Afghan desert, signing agreements with dictators based on the belief that America would be "safe," and seeing attacks and provocations as nothing more than a series of separate and unrelated criminal acts rather than as a sustain organized military assault on America.

The assumption in those days, according to Claudia Rosett writing in the Wall Street Journal recently, was that “what we didn’t acknowledge, really couldn’t hurt us. As long as we got dictators to sign on the dotted line, we’d be safe......protected by the paperwork that said so.” Decisions to use force were avoided to prevent a confrontation with the Arab and Islamic world, and also in the naive hope that these threats would simply disappear.

As a consequence, America focused on the arrest and trial of “the criminals,” protecting buildings rather than tracking down the terrorists and neutralizing their funders, planners, organizers and commanders. Worse, America relied on metal detectors, security guards, electronic surveillance and trials rather than ships, aircraft, soldiers and human intelligence. America studied the acts of terror as distinct from the ideology of the terrorist. It failed to recognize that the cumulative effect of these acts against America and American interests abroad were part of a sustained assault on this country. And our enemies perceived this as American vulnerability.

The result was inevitable.

This policy of "self-deception" led to the monstrous growth of al Qaeda, the naive Oil-for-Food shell-game with Iraq, the Oslo Accords, and the 1994 "Agreed Framework" with North Korea whereby America proclaimed “peace on the Korean peninsula” in return for allowing North Korea (a soon-to-be-member of the Axis of Evil) food, oil and the wiggle-room necessary to continue making (and marketing) missiles, chemical and biological weapons, and ultimately, its own nuclear weapon.

The North Korean fiasco was not the only attempt during the Clinton era at what Charles Krauthammer refers to as "paper diplomacy." The bloodiest farce was the Oslo "peace" Accords between Israel and the Palestinians. President Clinton insisted that it be signed on the White House lawn under his upraised arms. He then spent the next seven years brokering one new agreement after another while declaring the peace "irreversible." He knew it was so because Yasser Arafat had promised - in writing - an end to violence and terrorism. Then Arafat decided to start up the violence and terrorism in September 2000, bringing on the worst Israeli-Palestinian bloodshed in decades and leaving the Clinton "paper-pushers" surprised.

The absurd UN-run Oil-for-Food program with Iraq was another piece of paper based on the false assumption that Saddam Hussein would respect the written rules crafted by the world’s most hapless bureaucracy - the UN. Needless to say, he didn’t respect the rules, used Syria and Iran to bypass them, and now, he too is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons.

For too long, America has deluded itself into a false sense of security based upon the written word of dictators, and this delusion has lead to the Arab perception of American weakness. Written agreements didn't work well with Hitler or Mussolini and they still don't.

Unfortunately, the Oil-for-Food program, the Oslo Accords and the Korean Agreed Framework were not isolated incidents. The Arab states and al Qaeda took cognizance of the fact that the U.S., in the past, also failed to respond aggressively to many terrorist attacks against its own citizens in Beirut, in Tanzania, in Kenya and in Somalia; stood by while Americans were seized as hostages in Iran and Lebanon; let Saddam Hussein remain in power after the Gulf War (while letting the Shah fall in Iran); and pressured Israel, its ally, to make dangerous strategic concessions while simultaneously courting Israel’s enemies and allowing its prized Arab-Israeli peace process to be destroyed.

This policy also led the Chinese to conclude that “the United States is a superpower in decline, losing economic, political and military influence around the world,” according to the congressionally-mandated U.S.-China Security Review Commission. The Commission also noted that “Chinese analysts believe that the United States cannot and will not sustain casualties in pursuit of its vital interests.” That is, America is "soft."

And China is far from alone in holding this opinion. America’s perceived decline into weakness and its questionable “staying power” in pursuit of its strategic objectives has served as a call to arms to the monsters of the world.

Astute Middle Eastern observers have made much of the United States' post-Vietnam loathing for foreign adventures, and America's enemies have listened. In the 1970s, when many Iranians worried that American power would destroy their revolution if it went too far, Khomeini told them not to worry, saying America "won't do a damn thing." And as recently as 1998, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Khomeini's successor, insisted there was no need to negotiate with the United States since Tehran had shown that Washington was “too weak to be feared or heeded.”

Far from attacking the United States because it is a “big bully,” Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and others have urged attacks to prove that the United States was just a “paper tiger.” Barry Rubin, writing in the November-December issue of Foreign Affairs has noted that "not surprisingly, these same leaders have made it clear that, in their view, power (not popularity) is the most important factor for political success. As Syria's late president, Hafez al-Assad once noted, "It is more important to gain respect than to garner sympathy." Bin Laden has agreed, commenting that people always back the side that looks strongest. Western weakness in confronting Hitler, wrote Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Nizar Hamdoon, encouraged Nazi aggression (and presumably, that of Saddam Hussein as well)."

Even the process of placing "The Iraqi Resolution" before the UN has served to reinforce the Arab perception that America is weak - that America doesn't have the stomach to fight a bloody war with Iraq by itself, and so requires UN sanction and approval before it will commit its armies to battle - a dangerously incorrect perception, and one that will most assuredly lead to war.

Saddam Hussein has also tried to persuade Arabs and Muslims of U.S. weakness. He interpreted U.S. efforts at conciliation as "proof" that Washington feared confronting him. By evincing no strong reaction to Iraq's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds, threats against Israel, outspoken anti-Americanism, or ultimatum to Kuwait, U.S. policy helped precipitate the first Gulf War. In a February 24, 1990, speech to an Arab summit, Saddam told Arabs that America feared military confrontations and losses. It had shown "signs of fatigue, frustration, and hesitation" in Vietnam and Iran and had quickly run away from Lebanon" when some marines were killed" by suicide bombers in 1983. Experience had shown, he concluded, that if Iraq acted boldly, the United States would do nothing - a classical example of "misperception leading to war," and the primary reason why Iraq must be disarmed before it acquires nuclear capability.

Saddam may have been wrong in thinking that he could take over Kuwait and that America would stand by and do nothing, but he was right enough in his judgement of America to still be in power today, a decade after making what should have been his final miscalculation of "American weakness."

Radical Islamists, including Osama bin Laden, spoke in remarkably similar terms in the 1990s, arguing that direct strikes against U.S. interests or territory would be met by American cowardice and trigger an Islamic revolution. After all, he said, the mujahadeen had defeated the world’s other superpower in Afghanistan, and America would be “a much easier victory.” Even the U.S. defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan has not changed that perception.

So when a neophyte American President stands up (after the tragedies of September 11th) and proclaims an end to moral ambiguity, holds states responsible for the terrorists they sponsor, asserts a right of pre-emptive action, and assimilates Israel’s war against terrorism into its own, it comes as no surprise that the Arab world shrugs its shoulders and chalks it all up to American rhetoric.

Unfortunately, America has never considered how her actions (and reactions) are being perceived from the Arab perspective. The cultural differences between our societies allow the Arab world to see our efforts at "peace making" as "another aspect of weakness and vulnerability."

So what should Washington do in the face of this Arab "perception" problem?

Answer - forget friendly persuasion, concessions and written accords when dealing with terrorists and dictatorships like Iraq, Iran and Syria. Making concessions will only encourage further contempt for America and confirm the Arab perception of us as "cowards."

U.S. policymakers should understand that American public relations efforts, apologies, acts of appeasement, concessions, compromises resulting in "written agreements," attempts to build UN coalitions, or policy shifts will not do away with anti-American hatred. Only when the Arab regimes that manufacture and encourage this hatred are deposed will popular opinion change. Until then, promoting hatred of America will remain a necessary diversion for despots and dictators. Only when Arab women are empowered, only when the Arab masses are educated, and only when Arab society is democratized will changes come about.

In the interim, the United States must show steadfast support for its interests and its allies, and must be firm in following the Bush Doctrine. Our enemies must be convinced that democracy, while slow to anger is relentless when angered. The time for negotiating with Iraq over disarmament has long since passed. If America means business, then let's get on with it. If America wishes to change its perception as "coward" in the eyes of its enemies, it had better stand by Israel, defend its interests abroad, react swiftly and strongly to provocations and attacks, and urge moderate Arab states to do more publicly to justify American support. That is, either reform your systems, or make way for the reformers who will.

We must recognize that we are involved in World War III — in a war against the new totalitarians, who strike at our businesses, our discos, our airports and our theaters in an attempt to bring us to our knees, and force us back into pre-World War I isolationism.

In the 21st century, America will have to bury its “Vietnam Syndrome” and be prepared to fight the wars that must be fought – at all costs, if it is to remain a credible and respected world power. If it does not, if it allows the gradual negation of our sovereignty through American inaction (or insufficient reaction to attacks and provocations), a neo-isolationist mainstream will develop in this country, and America will no longer have an opportunity to dramatically alter the course of world events as it has today.

It means a paradigm shift in our thinking – leaving the domain of criminality and law enforcement-based tactics of arrests and detentions of Qaeda suspects and moving into the domain of warfare; targeting not just the foot soldiers of violence, but the organizations and governments that shelter them; using force so that the punishment is disproportionately greater than the damage resulting from the attack; defending our interests through aggressive action rather than courtroom skirmishes; relying on the armed forces rather than on policemen; and most importantly, a readiness to spend money and lose lives in support of our vital interests at home and abroad.

In the past, tenacity, passion and determination to stay the course for the just cause won victory in World War II over the Nazis and the Empire of Japan, and today, it remains the best way to counteract Arab perceptions of American weakness...... and to avert future 9/11s.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZ

Geez. Get to the point. Cant you come up with a simple minded one liner like

"Bring Em On",
"Dead or Alive",
"Fight them there so we dont fight them here",
"Stay the course",
"WMDs"
"Mushroom cloud"
"Freedumb isnt free"

Jennifer,

September 11th wasn't caused by Saddam Hussein or anyone in Iraq. 15 of the 19 hijackers (if they really existed and if they in fact, did crash those jets into the Trade Center towers) were Saudi Arabian. Now, dear, why do you think Osama bin Laden recruited 15 Saudi Arabians, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese and 2 men from the United Arab Emirates? Osama wanted the U.S. presence OUT of Saudi Arabia! We have had military bases on Saudi soil for years! Our military is currently constructing 14 permanent military bases in the Middle East. Why do you think these bases are being built? Chimp boy must have a military presence in Iraq in order to protect the oil supply! The United States government MUST control the flow of Iraqi oil, Jennifer! Saddam was making deals with China and Russia and agreeing to sell oil to them in return for Euros, dear, and NOT American dollars! Georgie Porgie and Unka Dick couldn't let that happen now could they?! They just had to get their war on and lie to the American people and Congress about the reasons for doing so in order to get their greedy hands on all that Iraqi oil! There was no faulty intelligence, Jennifer. The intelligence was cooked up by Ahmad Chalabi and fed to Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans in order to circumvent the CIA! Of course, George Tenet sold out to BushCo and said it was a "slam dunk" that Hussein had WMD. He is a liar and a fool. The entire administration is guilty of treason and war crimes and should be tried in an international criminal court and then either put into prison or executed.

America never would've been attacked in the first place if we hadn't had our asses in the Middle East to begin with. This administration isn't interested in alternate energy sources. They are only interested in pursuing the dwindling sources of fossil fuels left in the world because they (Bush and Cheney) are oil men and they are making a bloody fortune off this misadventure in Iraq. Our military needs to get out of the Middle East NOW!! The American people need to wake up fast and demand that Congress implement higher fuel standards for vehicles, implement alternate energy sources, give tax credits for hybrids, punish corporations that violate environmental laws etc.

It's always amazing to me that people like you and Mark Silverman are so quick to encourage bloodshed and war but aren't willing to step up to the plate and put your money where your mouth is.

You never answered my question, Jennifer. IF YOU ARE SO GUNG HO ABOUT THIS WAR AND SO CONVINCED IT'S A NOBLE ENDEAVOR THEN WHY DON'T YOU GO ENLIST AND GET YOUR ASS TO IRAQ??!!

I don't think you REALLY want to do that, do you? Then stop being an armchair quarterback and wake the hell up. Stand with those of us who know what is really going on in this country, Jennifer, or shut your mouth.

One doesn't bring democracy to a nation at the point of a gun or the end of a missile. Besides, we, meaning the United States, isn't in the business of nation building. We need to keep our noses out of other nations' business. Iraq never was a threat to the United States. Iraq never was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. Iraqis and Saddam never attacked us on 9-11. Iraq never was a haven for terrorists until NOW! Insurgents aren't the same thing as terrorists, Jennifer. Many, many of these suicide bombers simply don't know any other way to get the attention of the American government and people other than to blow themselves and others up. Many of these people are trying the only way they know how to get our military OUT of their country. Many of these people have come into Iraq from other countries in order to kill Americans because they are pissed off about the occupation of Iraq and want the infidels off Middle Eastern soil. America is viewed as a reckless bully hell bent on controlling the world. Bush and his band of thugs have ruined this country and this country's reputation. It will take generations for this country to regain the respect it once had and for the American people to pay off the national debt. Thanks a lot, and thanks to you and all the other fools who voted for that moron.

Even after everything that has come out about the Bush administration and their lies, their advocacy of torture, their illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, the privatization of public services in Iraq etc, you and others like you still believe Bush is a great president! It sickens me, really. People like you sicken me because YOU are what is wrong with this country, Jennifer.

Get off my planet and take your idiotic friends and your idiotic president with you.

Fortunately Kris, we "idiots" keep winning the elections. If left up to you cowards to protect us there is no telling how many more terrorists attacks we would have had on our soil.

Until your side comes up with something better than name calling, obstruction, and trying to revise history, I'll keep voting Republican.

You're either with America, or you're with the terrorists. Your choice is clear.

You Rethug pukes don't keep winning elections, Jennifer. Your idiotic commander in thief and his thug buddies continue having their thug buddies at Diebold, ES&S and Hart InterCivic rig voting machines in order to STEAL ELECTIONS, sweetheart. They also have their compadres intimidate voters, purge voter rolls, act as Secretary of State while simultaneously acting as Co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign etc. The list of corruption goes on and on, dearie.

Why do you label people "cowards" simply because they don't advocate blowing up other countries who haven't attacked us killing their citizens?! YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTION, JENNIFER!!!! WHY DON'T YOU GET OFF YOUR ASS AND GO ENLIST???!!! Who's the coward, dumbshit? It's really easy to shake the pom poms for war when YOU ARE NOT THE ONE GOING TO WAR!!! Do you have any kids, Jennifer? If you do are they in Iraq? If not then why not? Answer those questions, moron and stop preaching your stupid shit to other people.

That last line of yours is a real doozie, Jennifer. It's obvious you can't think for yourself, and you simply resort to parroting what Bush, Cheney and some of the other fascist terrorists scream on an almost daily basis.

You are so stupid and pathetic it's laughable, really.

Answer my questions above, Jennifer, or shut your god damned mouth.

Potty mouth Kris,

I'm a 43 year old Coast Guard veteran. I'm sure you don't think 6 years in the Coast Guard counts, but I'm sure you didn't serve your country at all. And yes, I believe you, John, Cindy Sheehan, and the rest of the whiney left are cowards.

I believe you are all using the deaths of brave volunteers to further your pacifist, socialist agenda. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Coast Guard!! What a joke!!! Why don't you enlist in the Army or even better, the Marines, Jennifer?! You're young enough, and I'm sure they'll take a willing volunteer, especially a Coast Guard veteran. Go enlist, sweetheart! By the way, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a pacifist or a socialist. I'd rather be a pacifist and a socialist than a fascist.............an ignorant, war loving fascist like you. Oh, but I forgot. You won't enlist will you? Who's the coward now?

Thanks for the laugh, Jennifer. Coast Guard!!!! That's a good one!

Although it doesn't surprise me, I'm sorry you demean those of us who served our country in the Coast Guard. Which branch of the Military did you serve in?

I didn't serve in any branch of the military, and I don't intend to, Jennifer. I intend to discourage my children from ever serving in the military as well.

YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTION, DEAR. IF YOU'RE SO GUNG HO ON THIS IRAQ WAR AND FEEL IT SERVES A NOBLE PURPOSE THEN WHY HAVEN'T YOU VOLUNTEERED TO GO INTO THE ARMY OR MARINES AND ASK TO BE DEPLOYED TO IRAQ?

Although I'm sure the Coast Guard does good work, we're not talking about that now are we, Jennifer? We are talking about those who have served and are serving in Iraq, namely Air Force, Army and Marines. I don't think the Coast Guard is doing jack squat in Iraq, do you?

Answer my question, Jennifer and quit putting it off. Put up or shut up.

Kris,
I'm not sure if they would take me at my age or physical condition but if you don't understand that I am 43 years old and would only get in the way of the younger volunteers I can't help you.

That fact that you didn't serve your country at all speaks volumes of your cowardness. Most of you Democrats take without giving to this great country of ours. Move to France would you?, you would fit it perfectly.

Well, the only way to know for sure if the military would take you is to go on down to the recruiting station and sign up!!! I'm sure they'd take a willing volunteer no matter what shape he/she is in, especially one who is so excited about bringing democracy to Iraq!! What a pathetic excuse for a human being you are. That is the lamest reason I have ever heard for someone not walking the walk they claim to support! It is soooooo typically Rethuglican. You are willing to let other people's children fight and die and kill innocent people in another country, but you willingly beat the war drums from the comfort and safety of your home. You chickenshit bitch!

From DailyKos here is a list of Democrats and Republicans who served and did not serve in the military as well as "talking heads":

List of Vets and Chickenhawks (4.00 / 4)

http://www.newstalk1010.net/...

Who served in the military? PRINTER FRIENDLY

Prominent Democrats
Representative Richard Gephardt, former House Minority Leader - Missouri Air National Guard, 1965-71. (1, 2)
Representative David Bonior - Staff Sgt., United States Air Force 1968-72 (1, 2)
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle - 1st Lt., U.S. Air Force SAC 1969-72 (1, 2)
Former Vice President Al Gore - enlisted August 1969; sent to Vietnam January 1971 as an army journalist, assigned to the 20th Engineer Brigade headquartered at Bien Hoa, an airbase twenty miles northeast of Saigon. More facts about Gore's Service
Former Senator Bob Kerrey... Democrat... Lt. j.g., U.S. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam (1, 2)
Senator Daniel Inouye, US Army 1943-'47; Medal of Honor, World War Two (1, 2)
Senator John Kerry, Lt., U.S. Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three awards of the Purple Heart for his service in combat (1)
Representative Charles Rangel, Staff Sgt., U.S. Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea (1, 2)
Former Senator Max Cleland, Captain, U.S. Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam (1, 2)
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - U.S. Army, 1951-1953. (1)
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) - Lt., U.S. Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74. (1, 2)
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) - U.S. Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91 (1)
Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - served as a U.S. Army officer in World War II, receiving the Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons. (1)

Representative Leonard Boswell (D-IA) - Lt. Col., U.S. Army 1956-76; two tours in Vietnam, two Distinguished Flying Crosses as a helicopter pilot, two Bronze Stars, and the Soldier's Medal. (1, 2)
Former Representative "Pete" Peterson, Air Force Captain, POW, Ambassador to Viet Nam, and recipient of the Purple Heart, the Silver Star and the Legion of Merit. (1, 2)
Rep. Mike Thompson, D-CA: Staff sergeant/platoon leader with the 173rd Airborne Brigade, U.S. Army; was wounded and received a Purple Heart. (1, 2)
Bill McBride, Democratic Candidate for Florida Governor - volunteered and served as a U.S. Marine in Vietnam; awarded Bronze Star with a combat "V." (1)
Gray Davis, former California Governor, Army Captain in Vietnam; received Bronze Star. (1)
Pete Stark, D-CA, served in the Air Force 1955-57
Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate - lengthy military career.

Prominent Republicans
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve.
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey - avoided the draft, did not serve.
House Majority Leader Tom Delay - avoided the draft, did not serve (1). "So many minority youths had volunteered ... that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself."
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt - did not serve
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist - did not serve. (An impressive medical resume, but not such a friend to cats in Boston.)
Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-KY - did not serve (1)
Rick Santorum, R-PA, third ranking Republican in the Senate - did not serve. (1)
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott - avoided the draft, did not serve.

Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld - served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. (1) Served as President Reagan's Special Envoy to the Middle East and met with Saddam Hussein twice in 1983 and 1984.
GW Bush - decided that a six-year Nat'l Guard commitment really means four years. Still says that he's "been to war." Huh?
VP Cheney - several deferments (1, 2), the last by marriage (in his own words, "had other priorities than military service") (1)
Att'y Gen. John Ashcroft - did not serve (1, 2); received seven deferment to teach business ed at SW Missouri State
Jeb Bush, Florida Governor - did not serve. (1)
Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve (1), too busy being a Republican.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich - avoided the draft, did not serve (1, 2)
Former President Ronald Reagan - due to poor eyesight, served in a noncombat role making movies for the Army in southern California during WWII. He later seems to have confused his role as an actor playing a tail gunner with the real thing.
"B-1" Bob Dornan - avoided Korean War combat duty by enrolling in college acting classes (Orange County Weekly article). Enlisted only after the fighting was over in Korea.
Phil Gramm - avoided the draft, did not serve, four (?) student deferments
Senator John McCain - McCain's naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. Why did the Bush campaign smear him so? At least Senators Cleland (D-GA), Kerry (D-MA), Kerrey (D-NE), Robb (D-VA) and Hagel (R-NE) defended him.
Former Senator Bob Dole - an honorable man. http://www.bobdole.org/...
Chuck Hagel - two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, Vietnam. http://www.senate.gov/...
Duke Cunningham - nominated for the Medal of Honor, received the Navy Cross, two Silver Stars, fifteen Air Medals, the Purple Heart, and several other decorations http://www.house.gov/...
Senator Jeff Sessions U.S. Army Reserves, 1973-1986
Colin Powell. What are we to make of Powell? On the one hand, a long career as a military manager. On the other hand, accused of covering up the My Lai massacre. Back on that first hand, one of the seemingly sane voices in this administration when it comes to Iraq (or at least he used to be). On the other hand, a clear hypocrite ("I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...")
Representative Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), served in USMC in Vietnam; wounded in action.
Here are a few more...

Democrats
Gray Davis, former California Governor, Army Captain in Vietnam; received Bronze Star.
Chuck Robb, US Senator from Virginia, served in Vietnam
Howell Heflin... Democrat... Silver Star
George McGovern, famous liberal, awarded Silver Star & DFC, dozens of missions during WWII.
Pete Stark, D-CA, served in the Air Force
Former President Bill Clinton - avoided the draft through student deferments; in the autumn of 1969, Clinton entered the draft but received a high number (311) and was never called to serve. (CNN article.) "...it was his doubts about the morality of the war and the Selective Service system that led him to abandon the ROTC idea and to subject himself to a draft lottery. Only the luck of the draw - a high lottery number - kept him out. " (Jeff Greenfield, ABC News, quoting Gov. Clinton.)
Former President Jimmy Carter, most recent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, seven years in the Navy. "Except for his fellow service-academy graduate Dwight Eisenhower, no President of the twentieth century spent more years in uniform than Carter." (New Yorker Magazine)
Former Vice President Walter Mondale, U.S. Army 1951-1953
Former Senator John Glenn, D-OH (1974-1999) - Served in WWII and Korea; extensive military commendations include the Distinguished Flying Cross on six occasions, and the Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
Congressman Tom Lantos, D-CA - Did not serve in the US military; did serve in the Hungarian anti-Nazi underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg, is the only Holocaust survivor to serve in Congress.

Republicans/Conservatives Political
Senator Richard Shelby, did not serve (1)
Senator Jon Kyl, R-AZ - did not serve (1, 2)
Senator Tim Hutchison, R-AR - did not serve (1, 2)
Rep. Christopher Cox, R-CA, fifth-ranking Republican in Congress - did not serve. (1)
Representative Saxby Chambliss, Georgia - did not serve (1, 2), had a "bad knee" (yet somehow feels he has a right to attack Max Cleland's patriotism)
Former Representative JC Watts - did not serve (1, 2)
Jack Kemp, did not serve (1, 2) (was unfit because of a knee injury, though he heroically continued as a National Football League quarterback for another eight years - source)
Former Vice President Dan Quayle, avoided Vietnam service, got a slot in the journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard when the unit was at 150% capacity (at least he showed up for his duty, unlike GW) (1, 2)
Eliot Abrams, did not serve (1, 2) (however, played a key role in subverting democracy in South America)
Paul Wolfowitz, did not serve (1, 2)
Former Representative Vin Weber, did not serve (1, 2)
Richard Perle, did not serve (1, 2) (is the current bloodshed in the Middle East a direct result of his treasonous meddling in Clinton Administrstion foreign policy?)
Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy - did not serve. (1)
Rudy Giuliani, did not serve (1, 2)
Michael Bloomberg, did not serve (1, 2)
George Pataki, did not serve (1, 2)
Spencer Abraham, did not serve
John Engler, did not serve (1, 2)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) - website used to claim service as a "Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm veteran." A current biographical website makes no such claim. In reality, was a National Guard lawyer who never left South Carolina during the Gulf War.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-CA, did not serve (1)
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-CA/49th, there were some problems with his service.
Rep. John M. McHugh, R-NY - avoided the draft, did not serve (1)
Arnold Schwarzenegger, CA Republican Governor - went AWOL from his Austrian army base to enter a bodybuilding competition
George Herbert Walker Bush, pilot in WWII. Shot down by the Japanese; was lone survivor out of airplane (link).
Tom Ridge, Bronze Star for Valor in Vietnam (1)
Representative Sam R. Johnson, combat missions in both Korea and Vietnam, POW in Hanoi from April 1966 to February 1973 (1)
(don't ever run for president Sam, they'll spread rumors that you're crazy)
Senator Ted Stevens, R-AK, WW II pilot, two Distinguished Flying Crosses, two Air Medals, and the Yuan Hai medal awarded by the Republic of China.
Sen. John Warner, R-VA - Served in the Navy during WWII as a RM3
Congresswoman Heather Wilson, R-NM, served in the Air Force 1978-1989
Former President Gerald Ford, served in the Navy, WWII
Former Senator Strom Thurmond - apparently believes, along with Trent Lott, that America should have been a segregated society. Still, he served.

Punditocracy and Preacher-types (See also Media Whores Online)
George Will, did not serve
Chris Matthews, Mediawhore, did not serve.
Bill O'Reilly, did not serve
Paul Gigot, did not serve.
Bill Bennett, Did not serve
Pat Buchanan, did not serve
Rush Limbaugh, did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst' [see "The Rush Limbaugh Story" by Paul D. Colford, St. Martin's Press, 1993, Chapter 2: Beating the Draft.])
Michael Savage (aka Michael Alan Weiner) - did not serve, too busy chasing herbs and botany degrees in Hawaii and Fiji
John Wayne, did not serve
Pat Robertson - claimed during 1986 campaign to be a "combat veteran." In reality, was a "Liquor Officer."
Bill Kristol, did not serve
Sean Hannity, did not serve.
Kenneth Starr, did not serve
Antonin Scalia, did not serve
Clarence Thomas, did not serve
Ralph Reed, did not serve
Michael Medved, did not serve
Charlie Daniels, did not serve
Ted Nugent, did not serve
Radio Host Phil Hendrie, did not serve.
Ollie North - Convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal, at least he served.
Charlton Heston - served in WWII, but went AWOL when Michael Moore asked him some tough questions.

Independents
Gov. Jesse Ventura, U.S. Navy SEAL training, did UDT work
Senator Jim Jeffords, U.S. Navy 1956-1959

As you can clearly see, moron, there are plenty of Democrats who served our country valiantly. So, your assertion that Democrats are cowards is just plain B.S.

None of us is moving to France. We will continue to live in America and make this country great again by holding all those accountable who would lie to the American people, thereby starting an illegal war and wreck this country's reputation and economy because of their avarice.

YOU and others like you had better watch your backs. Those of us in this country who KNOW murder and destruction have been committed in our names are mad as hell, and we intend to hold every one of you bastards accountable for the continuation of these war crimes. We'll stomp a mudhole in your ass, monkey.

Do yourself a favor. Get off the Houston Democrats blog and stop embarrassing yourself. Those of us who frequent this blog know what a mental midget you are. Head on over to the Free Republic blog. You'll find lots of other pinheads just like you to commiserate with.

Coward Graham

Did you serve our country?

I serve my country every day by exposing the lying bastards in the Bush administration to all who will listen. I serve my country every day by helping progressive populist candidates get elected. I serve my country by volunteering to be a precinct chair in my precinct. I serve my country every day by being a part of progressive groups that are trying to effect positive social and economic change in this country and the global community.

What IS it that you do, monkey? YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTION ABOUT VOLUNTEERING AND ENLISTING IN THE ARMY OR THE MARINES!!! WHAT'S STOPPING YOU? DON'T GIVE ME THAT OLD LINE YOU DON'T KNOW IF THEY'D ACCEPT YOU OR NOT. THEY'LL TAKE ANY WILLING VOLUNTEER WHO CAN BREATHE!!!

Bite me, Chimp.

Sorry Kris,
Today's voluntary Military doesn't accept anyone and everyone as they used to. I'm quite sure my physical limitations and age would prevent me from serving today. But at least I volunteered and served my country when I was able, you didn't.

Keep crapping on the Military. Just like the 2000 election when the Democrats sued to try to prevent overseas Military ballots from being counted, and just like the 2004 elections when the democrats were criticizing our brave soldiers in harms way, the 2006 and 2008 elections will result with the Military and the majority of Americans putting their trust in the Republican Party.

Today's military is lowering its standards by the hour, Ms. Diamico. It is so overextended now that if a second invasion of a middle eastern nation is begun in either Iran or Syria, we would have to go nuclear in order to survive. The USA has borrowed so heavily from China and Japan in order to finance its military budget that it is on the verge of economic collapse. In five short years I have seen my country go from a surplus of almost 200 billion dollars to a deficit of almost 800 billion. That's a turnaround of one trillion dollars in 5 friggin' years! The cost of the Iraq war in tax dollars to date is approximately $1200 per person in the U.S. each year until my grandchildren reach 65. AND the repuglican party wants to give more tax breaks for the rich while cutting social programs for education, veterans, and children's health care! All this from the administration that also threatens to veto any bill that would repudiate torture. THIS is YOUR party and YOUR legacy, Ms. Diamico.

Gee that's a funny way to look at the past five years.

As I remember, Bush inherited a recession and we now have low inflation, low unemployment, and more people owning homes than at any other time in history.
All that good news despite being attacked on 9/11, several major natural disasters and the entire Democrat Party trying to obstruct every major piece of legislation.

The current recession began, according to Job Watch (http://www.jobwatch.org/) and CNN Money (http://money.cnn.com), in November 2001 when 3 out of the four quarters that year reflected drops in GDP and a loss of over two million jobs. I believe 2001 was the first year of Chimpee's administration. The previous 8 years (Clinton) had registered increases in every year, including creation of six million new jobs. At the current growth rate of an average of 78,000 new jobs per month. The need for job creation to match the rate of population growth will "never" be met. AND those 78,000 average new jobs being created are averaging over $3000 less per year than the lost job category.

The new housing growth has been directly tied to mortgage interest rates which have been kept artificially low by the Fed. As interest rates increase in order to check inflation the new home starts and purchasing will fall off. In fact, the month of November saw a drop of 11% in new housing starts, the worst in three years.

The Democrats are incapable of obstructing any legislation without the help of votes from across the aisle. The record of veto usage by Bush indicates how much the opposition party is "obstructing". According to the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com), Bush has NOT VETOED A SINGLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION IN FIVE YEARS. Of course, he is threatening to use the veto for the first time, if a bi-partisan congress passes a "No Torture" bill!

Strike three! Yer out, Diamico!

"more people owning homes than at any other time in history"

Uh....this is a BS statistic. EVERY year more people own omes than at any other time in history! In fact every day this is true, every hour, every minute!

The only way this would NOT be true is if the builders would stop building AND people would foreclose.

What a dumb butt statistic.

Oh....by the way, the rate of foreclosure is the highest in history! (really!)

This conversation has degenerated into personal attacks from all concerned. I'm closing the thread.