One paragraph from the DLC’s newest article caught my eye. Al From and Bruce Reed just have this so wrong.
They were just as wrong when they wanted to pursue military action in Iraq. They are wrong today.
9/11 was not a military failure, it was failure of our government to protect us in a domestic way. This is a long article, but one paragraph stands out.
We believe that the Sept. 11 attacks changed America forever, and defeating terrorism is the supreme military and moral mission of our time. To win the war on terror, America needs more troops and more friends. We believe that running the country deep into debt is economically dangerous and morally wrong. Economic and military might go hand in hand, and victory can only be assured when all Americans, including our political leaders, not just soldiers and taxpayers, sacrifice.
There are some thing I agree with it, but the emphasis on the military turns me off. Another quote:
“We challenge Washington to increase America’s Armed Forces by 100,000 troops. Iraq isn’t the last war we’ll have to fight, and we need a bigger army. We need to challenge more Americans to serve, and give them the means to do so.
Our nation’s top colleges must no longer be allowed to shut their doors to military recruiters. It is wrong to shield America’s elites from the duties of freedom.”
Here is the link:
Tunnel vision is catching, and obviously infects the top levels of the DLC. From, et. al. don’t speak for the progressives I know, nor for the democratic party leadership. Too much Gucci, not enough COSTCO.
Rather than increasing strictly military numbers, in concept I support Rep. Rangel’s H. R. 2723, the Universal Service Act:
The act would require either military or civilian service for everyone between the ages of 18 – 26. Level field would provide income, training, and medical care. It is need of serious tweaking, but could work well into the future. Enter service following high school, or 2-4 year colleges.
Yet you never pointed out that we invaded a country that was not responsible for the attacks.
That means you are not being honest with us.
None of our politicians have a clue how to end “terrorism” so they just jump on the military, guns, be touth line in one form or another. Sadly whatever military tack is taken will only result in fostering more terrorism. It seems nobody has either the intelligence or balls to mention an alternative non-military approach which may actually lead to a decline in terrorism but will not sound “macho and manly”.
Attacks stopped by the military: 0
Attacks stopped by intelligence: 0
Attacks stopped by gun-totin’ citizens: 0
Attacks stopped by unarmed citizens: 1
Clearly, we need a lot more nukes if we’re ever going to catch up to the unarmed citizens.
The Maginot Military. Holding the Soviet at bay and winning D-Day no matter how long it takes.
<sigh>