Democrats accept tough Military Stance
By Steve Boggess (08/14/05)
After months of internal debate and closed-door discussions, Democrats have begun to develop a more aggressive foreign policy that focuses heavily on threats they say are being neglected by the Bush administration, while avoiding taking a contentious stance on Iraq.
Translation: Our collective backs are against the wall now. While we really don’t want anymore military involvement in Iraq, and would love to see the president pull the troops out, and watch as the insurgency attacks quadruple in activity and blame the Bush administration for pulling out too early. We realize that our stance on the military issue in Iraq and worldwide must change, but we still want to have it both ways and still not take too much of an aggressive stance on Iraq.
It seems that there are Democrats who have taken the liberal side of things thus far on the war in Iraq are now calling for more troops in uniform. They are proposing that threats of force be used to stop nuclear weapons programs in North Korea and Iran. They are also calling for potential military involvement to ease famine and oppression around the world.
Of course we all know there is a left-wing political slant to all this ideology now going on behind those closed-door sessions on how to more effectively use the military.
My liberal BS radar is on full alert now.
Translation: Since we really don’t appreciate the military and have given up on any credible solutions to end world hunger, especially in those third world countries where the population is dying of hunger due to those governments being Muslim, and all the monies we have given those same governments doesn’t seem to be getting to where we want it to go for that same reason.
Now we (liberals) want to explore how to use military force to show North Korea and Iran that we’re not kidding when it comes to us wanting them to begin dis-arming themselves of those nuclear weapons. (Be aggressive, but not too aggressive.) And we want to use the military as good will ambassadors to ease the famine and oppression around the world to achieve what every liberal wants, world peace.
Democrats are also calling for better pay and benefits for soldiers and heightened efforts to protect mass transit and other potential terrorist threats.
Translation: If we vote to give them a pay raise with benefits to match, then maybe they wont mind being used as Rent-A-Cops at train and bus stations, especially here in D.C.
This is speaking of National Guard soldiers.
Democrats are now realizing that winning congressional and presidential elections in the post-September 11 world requires candidates to understand that sometimes, military might and power must be used to defend our freedoms. No one likes to go to war, especially those who have to go and fight (soldiers like me.) Sometimes, the president has to do what he knows is right, no matter how hard the left winded breeze is blowing.
Despite the fact that many left wing pressure groups are calling for a quick exit from Iraq, now the party of toleration is talking about how they might get with the program and begin to use the brains God gave them for better uses, instead of all the accusations of every vote not being counted, and how Bush was AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard, and how he stole the election-again since he won a second term in the oval office this last time.
Hillary Rodham Clinton said: “Having the strongest military in the world is the first step, but we also need to have a strong commitment to using our military in smart ways that further peace, stability, and security around the world.”
Translation: If I am going to run for president in 2008, then I need to change my position from the left to center at this point in time to confuse any of my potential opponents, and show the voters that I understand how to use the military. It doesn’t matter that neither Bill nor I have never once, while he was president, ever had anything but contempt for the military. But if elected president, I will use the military to further any social experiments I have in regards to the policies of other nations, just because I can.
Sen. Joe Biden (D-Delaware) the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee sees the use of force this way: “Force will be used without asking anyone’s permission-when circumstances warrant.”
Translation: We were too near sighted in our views of going to the UN to ask permission to defend ourselves against Iraq. But we also want to have it both ways when we feel we need to ask the UN for permission to defend ourselves, in that we feel that organization does have our best interests at heart.
They can re-package it in as many ways as they want, but the bottom line here is that Democrats still don’t get it when it comes to properly using military force against evil aggressors.
We aren’t humanitarians; we are a war winning, peace keeping force that is to be used when needed for the correct circumstance.
If this is how the Democrats see using military force, then they need more of those closed-door meetings to discuss further how they will change their views. Other wise, it’s the same ideology, different political campaign.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Steve Boggess
