The DLC wants Dems to encourage recruiting on campuses

[Rose Siding]

DLC | New Dem Dispatch | March 9, 2005
Supporting Our Troops

snip>
DNC Chairman Howard Dean just announced he was creating an "Office of Military and Veterans Outreach." That's an excellent idea. But we must go farther than inviting military-minded Americans to join the party coalition: we must make it clear we do not share the views of those who would treat the military as a suspect institution. Progressive Policy Institute president Will Marshall has suggested that Democrats call on colleges (virtually all of whom receive significant public subsidies) to abandon the practice (common at many elite schools) of banning military recruiters from campuses. Democrats rightly criticize the Bush administration for policies that have stretched our armed forces to the breaking point; we should also be willing to help them meet their recruitment goals, even if that's not "politically correct" on some campuses.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253207

This, even as they discuss in the article the fact that a bonafied war hero didn't take down Bush. See, that's why we have to try harder to out red-white-and-blue the GOP.

Hey! Maybe if we all goose-step!

[AntiCoup2K4]

Will Marshall is a treasonous PNAC criminal

...whose ass belongs in a Federal Prison, NOT in a prominent position in the Democratic Party.

[Freddie Stubbs]

66. What laws has he broken?

:shrug:

[tsuki]

68. Posing as a human being.

[Freddie Stubbs]

71. Hitler used to degrade those who he didn't like by calling them 'subhuman'

It is quite sad to see that some Democrats are adopting this tactic. I've never even heard Bush say this about his opponents.

[acmejack]

1. DLC is a bunch

of proven losers. To hell with them and their third way!

[jsw_81]

7. Proven losers?

The DLC gave us Bill Clinton and Al Gore, both of whom were elected President of the United States. Your wing of the party -- the loony left -- gave us George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis. Nuff said.

[markus]

13. No Bill Clinton (and Gore) merely used the DLS as stepping stones

because of the focus of the early DLC on the south and forming Super Tuesday. It was certainly helpful to any southerner who wanted to seek the Democratic nomiation.

Clinton won because he was Clinton. Gore "lost" because of the spinelessness of the careerism and corporatism which the DLC represents: they didn't have the spine to really confront Bush when the chips were down.

The DLC ultimately undermines our only possible path to success: open and fierce economic populism. It will result in an end to corporate contributions to major Democrats, and the majority of those in Congress will be afraid of that.

Do you think George Bush won re-election by appealing to the center? Was the national gay marriage amendment drive an appeal to the center?

[Beacho]

21. Pah!

You forgot to mention losing both the House and the Senate

Clinton is it and that was because of....wait for it....Clinton


BTW, what have you done for us LATELY?


That's right, not a goddam thing . Oh, except for enabling these goose stepping neocon bastards with some of the most spineless performances ever seen in politics.

Sorry, but you DLCers are through running the show(into the ground)


Your organization is neither democratic, nor does it the quality of leadership. But it is a council

Hey one out of three ain't bad

[chaumont58]

24. Bill Clinton won in '92 and '96 because he is the most gifted politican..

of our time. He could have run on the Whig ticket and won.
If you give people a chance to vote for a psuedo repuke and a real repuke, they will choose the real repuke much of the time.

Some of the DLC types I can understand. Bayh, Landreau, the Nelson twins, the Arkansas twins, represent states that are hardcore Red. Lieberman? A mystery.

As for Gore, I remember that the first decision he made after getting the nomination in 2000 was to choose Lieberman as his running mate.

"Hi. My name is Joe Lieberman, and I represent the Republican wing of the Democrat Party."

[aquart]

2. WHO is Will Marshall?

And why should anyone listen to a word he says.

But then, I ain't a knee-jerk progressive and I still can't figure out what the word means.

[acmejack]

3. Read this

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=87&subsecID=112&contentID=1100

[aquart]

5. Is that a toupee?

[tsuki]

4. I would say f**k Will Marshall, but as a southern woman of an

indeterminate age, I cannot. So screw him.

[cestpaspossible]

6. They sure do go out of their way to marginalize themselves.

Talk about being out of step with the rest of the party. Wow.

[madfloridian]

8. Will Marshall: "Blair Democrats, Ready for Battle"...2003

This is one of his more arrogant ones, one I just despised. They minimalized Howard Dean at every turn then, and they will continue to do so now. What the hell is a Blair Democrat anyway, and do you want to be one?

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=171&contentid=251557

SNIP..."The U.S.-led coalition's stunning success in liberating Iraq is undoubtedly a triumph for President Bush. But Karl Rove shouldn't get too giddy, because it may be a boon for some Democrats, too.

After all, four of the leading Democratic presidential contenders -- Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sens. Joseph Lieberman, John Kerry and John Edwards -- not only voted to support the war but also joined British Prime Minister Tony Blair in demanding that Bush challenge the United Nations to live up to its responsibilities to disarm Iraq. This position put these "Blair Democrats" in sync with the vast majority of Americans who said they would much rather attack Saddam Hussein's regime with United Nations backing than without it. And it puts them at odds with what Kerry called the "blustery unilateralism" of the president, which combined with French obstructionism to rupture not only the United Nations but the Atlantic alliance as well...."

AND of course the usual gloating:

SNIP..."Just as the swift liberation of Iraq has strengthened the Blair Democrats, it has weakened the party's antiwar contingent, whose worst fears failed to materialize. The outcome deals a near-fatal blow to the presidential prospects of Howard Dean, whose staunch opposition to the war thrilled Iowa's left-leaning activists but is out of step with rank-and-file Democrats, about two-thirds of whom approve of the war. Moreover, because 75 percent of all voters back the war, the odds that Democrats will make Bush's day by serving up an antiwar nominee as his opponent in 2004 seem long indeed.

Like the first Persian Gulf War in 1990-91, the Iraq crisis was a critical test of the Democratic Party's willingness to use force in the national interest. Thanks to the Blair Democrats, it was a test that Democrats largely passed....."

Well, Will, we almost had that anti-Iraq-war candidate, didn't we?

[dsc]

14. actually if you listen to Kerry's most ardent supporters he was anti war

But nothing like declaring victory too soon. This was apparently written around the time that Saddam was captured. Since then we have lost over a thousand people and appear to be bogged down in a quagmire.

[jsw_81]

9. What's wrong with military recruiting?

Somebody's got to defend the country. On my campus every group imaginable gets to recruit, everything from the Transgender Alliance to the Islamic Brotherhood, so why shouldn't the U.S. military be allowed?

[IndianaGreen]

10. Conscription through poverty

These slime bags prey on impressionable and desperate young people. All they care about is getting their canon fodder quota filled. None of them gives a rat's ass about the broken lives, and the deaths, that their recruiting tactics will lead to.

During Vietnam I supported kicking ROTC off campus. I feel just as strongly now. Let's stop feeding the Imperial Army!

[IrateCitizen]

19. Don't you love these comments from non-veterans, IG?

I know that you did your time in the service. So did I. It often seems that the most strident supporters of anything military are those who never spent a moment in the ranks.

[BL611]

32. I'm a veteran...

Served in Iraq, hated the war, but am still glad I served my country, most people I know who served with me and were against the war feel the same, yes miltary recruiting is slimy business, just about everything my recruiter told me was a lie, but you what I'm still glad I did and so are most.

[IrateCitizen]

18. For one, because they're a discriminatory organization...

They do not accept openly gay people into the ranks. Secondly, they are not the same as a normal job, as you cannot quit when you no longer want to work for them.

The two examples you gave are clubs, not businesses or employers. It's comparing apples and oranges.

[JerseygirlCT]

77. I keep hearing of too many examples of dishonesty

in recruiting. And a lie there can cost a person their life. (You won't be sent to Iraq... those sort of things.)

Forgive some of us if we have a deeply ingrained distrust here.

And the war in Iraq is doing nothing to defend this country, in fact, probably the opposite.

[Selatius]

11. I'll let recruiters on campus but only if counter-recruiters are allowed

Ever heard of counter-recruiters?

Counter-recruiters formed a national network at meetings in Philadelphia in the summers of 2003 and 2004. They range from Vietnam War veterans, such as Murphy, to high school students trained to talk to their peers about enlistment.

The American Friends Service Committee, one of several peace groups opposed to what it calls "militarization of youth," has prepared a brochure titled "Do You Know Enough to Enlist? "In a tip of the hat to the opposition, it's deliberately designed to look like a military recruiting brochure.

Using a 1986 federal appeals court decision that supported the rights of draft registration opponents to equal access to students, the Los Angeles Unified School District teachers' union has helped get counter-recruiting into some schools regularly visited by military recruiters in the nation's second largest public district. The counter-recruiters make public address announcements, distribute literature, show documentaries and give classroom presentations.

In the San Francisco area, members of a group called the Raging Grannies dress up in flamboyant old-lady attire (big hats, long, flowered dresses) and visit high schools. They offer a selection of political buttons and make their pitch while students are choosing. Sometimes the Grannies sing peace songs and dance.

"When you kick up your heels, it gets their attention," says Ruth Robertson, a 52-year-old Granny.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0308Counter-Recruiter-ON.html

I want everybody represented on campus...EVERYBODY.

[mdguss]

39. they are:

groups that I find annoying--like the International Socialist Organization, etc. are allowed on campus.

[fujiyama]

12. Nice idea but how?

By being a republican, but not EXACTLY a republican? By being a fascist, but a friendlier one?

I'm sure if From and Marshall are in charge of recruitment, they'd have less luck than Lyndon LaRouche (those quacks are on my campus all the time).

[wyldwolf]

15. I see NO problem with this. Why do you?

Have you even considering what the post states?

DNC Chairman Howard Dean just announced he was creating an "Office of Military and Veterans Outreach." That's an excellent idea.

Is there a problem with that? No.

For all the anti-military DUers, I hope you get used to being disappointed. Are you really upset with Dean now? Sorry, the Democrats have always been strong on defense and Dean's goal is to strengthen that image and shake off the "weak on defense" one.

we must make it clear we do not share the views of those who would treat the military as a suspect institution.

Sound advice. The military unto itself isn't a "suspect institution." It's leadership is. That's the leadership we must replace by, as Dean plans, inviting military-minded Americans to join the party coalition.

Progressive Policy Institute president Will Marshall has suggested that Democrats call on colleges (virtually all of whom receive significant public subsidies) to abandon the practice (common at many elite schools) of banning military recruiters from campuses.

Damn straight! Military recruiters prey on lower end schools while the rich kids aren't bothered by it. Let's level the field and give the "elite" kids the opportunity to serve.

Wasn't that a concept Moore pointed out in F911 and cheered for here at DU?

And the schools in question are colleges with kids making career choices and who wouldn't join the military to escape poverty. Being in college (especially elite ones), they've ALREADY escaped poverty if they were ever even in it!

Being pro-military isn't Republican. It isn't fascist. Unless FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, and many other Dem presidents were Repubs and fascists.

[IrateCitizen]

17. Theory vs. Reality...

Wyldwolf, I can certainly see your point here, and I can't find too much to disagree with. However, I think what you're missing is the theory of this, in comparison with the reality of how it is put into practice.

Military recruiters aren't going to flock to elite institutions like Harvard, Yale or Columbia. However, they will (and already ARE) flock to community colleges and public universities.

I've seen this in practice. I currently attend classes part-time at the City College of New York to work toward my history degree and teaching certificate. Since such an overwhelming amount of financial resources have gone to the war, aid to the states is down considerably. This then results to states cutting educational budgets and raising tuition at public universities.

So, what happens is that students see their tuition go up, their financial aid either stagnate or get cut, and suddenly they have trouble paying for tuition. Especially if they're largely working class kids, like at CCNY. Knowing this, the military recruiters swoop in and tell the kids about how they can get great educational benefits by signing up. Next thing they know, they're on a plane to Iraq for just wanting enough money to get an education.

Ever hear of Pablo Parades, the sailor who refused his duty aboard a ship that was to ferry Marines to Iraq? He was attending community college in the Bronx on a small scholarship, when tuition went up but his scholarship didn't. The military told him that they could then "help" if he signed up. He joined the military solely to get an education, and then was forced to choose between his conscience and his orders, and could be facing court-martial for the choice he made.

Finally, I'd like to know how much time you've spent in the military that you can say with absolute certainty that it is not a "suspect institution"? I spent 5 years in ROTC and 8 years as a commmissioned officer in the Army Reserve, and I can tell you that it absolutely is a "suspect institution". Its sole purpose is to deal out death and destruction. It is a culture that glorifies violence and discourages individuality or critical thinking. It exists for the waging and winning of wars, PERIOD. In order to fully assimilate into it, you are FORCED to give up a portion of your humanity, otherwise you will remain alienated while within it. Trust me, I know this from experience more than you can imagine. That is not to say that the people who join the military are "suspect", because 99.99% of them are not. However, as an institution, by and large it IS suspect.

People like Marshall Whitman, Will Marshall and Peter Beinart are promoting this line because they know with certainty that neither they nor their progeny will ever be in a position that they HAVE to join the military. They'll be above it all as they cheerlead for others to go and do the fighting in their stead, all the while talking about how "necessary" and even how "glorious" all those "sacrifices" are from the safe confines of their posh offices in Washington, DC.

[BL611]

33. Sorry I see where your coming from,but i have to disagree

Are you forced to give up a portion of your humanity? Yes I suppose you are trained to be able to kill on instinct. I remember going through basic and having some reservations of those cadences you sing before BRM and bayonet training, however when you're IN combat if you're moral epiphany is at that point instead of BCT, you'll be coming home in a box. As far as individuality and critical thinking, I also agree, this was particularly rough on me, but again this is the only way to survive in combat, while these traits are undesirable the lessons on teamwork and discipline are just as valuable. Again while I agree that all of this is rough, unless you're a pacifist, it is unfortunately necessary for survival.

[IrateCitizen]

34. You're really only disagreeing with me in nuance...

You readily admit that military training makes you surrender a portion of your humanity. You admit that it makes you give up critical thinking and individuality.

You said, "I also agree, this was particularly rough on me, but again this is the only way to survive in combat, while these traits are undesirable the lessons on teamwork and discipline are just as valuable. Again while I agree that all of this is rough, unless you're a pacifist, it is unfortunately necessary for survival."

I think you left out a key phrase at the end of you last sentence, which is "in combat." The traits of following orders without question and reverting to a conditioned response to fire upon a sillouette are only necessary for survival in COMBAT.

It seems to me, as a thinking person, that the ultimate solution would be to strive to eliminate the possibility and need to subject people to combat, as a means toward ending the reinforcement of these negative traits.

Does the military teach its members self-discipline and teamwork? Absolutely. You'll never hear me disagree about that. However, I think that lack of critical thinking, conformity, and diminishment of humanity is a helluva high price to pay to learn those traits.

Also, I sent you a PM -- let me know if you got it.

[BL611]

48. Got the PM and responded

"It seems to me, as a thinking person, that the ultimate solution would be to strive to eliminate the possibility and need to subject people to combat, as a means toward ending the reinforcement of these negative traits."

I agree that would be the ultimate ideal solution although I don't believe it is a realistic one for anytime in the near future. Since soldiers primary responsibility is in combat, that is the environment they must be trained to react in. Its my experience that those negative traits do not have to stick with you past the point of necessity (as well as some of the positive ones-if my DS saw my bedroom he'd have me sleeping outside for the rest of the year). I think the thing that makes the military experience unique is the extreme nature of it, that can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your point of view. Sometimes when I look at the world I'm really not sure whether it makes you lose a piece or your humanity or accept humanity for what it really is.

[Rose Siding]

20. Buying into a myth won't dispel it

Democrats have supported military members in powerful ways, from the GI bill to outrage over bush's catastrophic miscalculations in Iraq. Which party is fighting for combat pay? Body armor? Disability pay for retired members? Survivor benefits equal to those of civilian survivors? To restore promised health care benefits that have been stolen? etc etc

It's a myth (read: LIE) to say that Democrats aren't pro-military.

BUT, surrendering the principle of opposing discrimination would be wrong, even as a pander to hawkish republican brass. Under the current circumstances, I wouldn't want anyone's enlistment on my conscience -but I'd support a national program of conscription before giving away key principles (also only a DEM idea, so far)

BTW, I have no problem at all with Dean's outreach program. Hopefully, it will be a way to spread the truth that dems DO support the military.

[freestyle]

16. The schools are more anti-bigotry than anti-military

Most of the schools that have kicked out military recruiters have done so because the military's discrimination against GLBT people conflicts with school policies against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So, the call to encourage military recruiters is really another thinly disguised call to throw over GLBT people to appeal to the mythical mainstream.

[ThorsHammer]

23. I don't get the anti-gay policies at all

As a straight male, this 'don't ask, don't tell' policy seems completely asinine. In a time where we are stretched paper-thin, it makes no sense to fire people who want to be there for something unrelated to their job. I would have no problem drumming out people who were sexually harassing others, gay or straight, but it just doesn't make sense to turn people down just for being gay. From the article that was on the front page a few days ago, many of the gays who left were people in positions we need - intelligence, translators, engineers, etc.

[XemaSab]

29. If you were in a WWI foxhole,

surrounded by the dead remnants of your fellow soldiers with explosions going off left and right and a horde of deranged germans running towards you, what would be more terrifying than some guy checking out your ass?

/sarcasm

[mdguss]

22. Just another reason why I'm a member of the DLC:

Say what you want about the war, and Bush's misguided reasons for it. But Do not question the brave men and women who are serving in the military. Do not question the motives of college students who want to serve their country. Do you think a college junior might have thought about the potential consequences of enrolling in the military? I do. I think those who enroll in the military are nobel people who seek to serve their country, and the freedom to post drivel like this.

DLC=saine organization with lots of good ideas. Leftist fundmentalism=flawed philosophy that just can't understand why everybody doesn't think like them.

[chaumont58]

25. I am a vet, a senior, and a long time Dem

You call discussion drivel. I think you are in the wrong party. The bushies are the ones that wont tolerate disention.
I see 'I support the troops' signs where I live(bush country, in more ways than one). I confess to not know what the signs mean. Do the people that support the troops pay extra taxes? Have they ponied up for body armor? Lord knows the bushies haven't paid a great deal of attention to that minor little task.
I went into the service when I was 18 years old. It had nothing to do with bravery. It was a convenient way to get away from the hick town I was raised in.
It seems to me that most DLC types support the Iraq War. In doing so, they support a war criminal. I am convinced Bush is a war criminal. In 1946, the WW II allies hanged Germans for doing the same thing Bush has done. There were no WMDs, no tie to AlQaeda. Bush slaughtered 1500 Americans and maybe 100,000 Iraqis, for what? I don't know. I suspect you don't either.

[mdguss]

35. I oppose the war:

First thanks for your service to the country. Second, I oppose the war because the "Bush Doctrine," is extremely dangerous--it is only a matter of time before a Syria or Iran engages in a pre-emptive war. That will be disastourus for the world.

But I don't go along with the leftist ranting of "war-criminal," "liar," "idiot," etc. Bush made a wrong decision. Since then the administration of the occupation has been terrible. But don't use the word war criminal--read the Atlantic Monthly for March 2005, and "The Case," article. Minimize Saddam Hussein's crimes by throwing insults at Bush if you want to, but you cannot say that it isn't a good thing that he's gone. He needed to be removed. Bush approached the thing from an improper direction, and a direction that may cause terrible things to happen in the future, but I'm glad Saddam is gone.

[CWebster]

36. He didn't make a wrong decision

He deliberately lied.

[chaumont58]

53. Why isn't he a war criminal?

The United States Military invaded a sovereign nation(that was not a threat to the US, in any way shape or form), and in the process, caused the deaths of 1500 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. By what right, does the US invade another country? The UN can not give that right. They do not possess it. Bush gets away with BECAUSE the US is the biggest bully on the block. In 1939, Hitler invaded and conquered Poland, using the pretext that Poland attacked a radio station near the German-Polish border. How is that different from what Bush did?
The DLC seems determined to give chimpie a pass on this horrible mess he has gotten his country into. This was a war of choice. Chimpie and the rest of his criminal enterprise warned us of "the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud. They warned us of balsa wood drones flying missions over continental US. They warned us of chemical and biological stockpiles. Cheney or Rumsfield claimed to know exactly where some of them were. Now, the best they come up with is that ALL were moved to Syria. I don't need to repeat all of the lies the bushies told. Most people are familar with them, having heard them at least once. Look at the double standard the beltway whores practice. A Dem president causes a chemical factory in the Sudan to be bombed. The whores claim he is wagging the dog.
I can wonder where these whores were in 1983. Two days after destruction of the Marine Barracks in Beruit which killed more than 250 Marines, the US Military invaded Greneda. It was such a rushed, trumped up exercise, the four services couldn't communicate with each other. They had to use the public telephone system. Bush(ver 1.0) invaded Panama in 1989, on the pretext of capturing a drug lord. Why has Colombia been spared all these years?
This canard about the Dems being intent on destroying the military is pure unadulterated BS. The wingnuts like to go about how Clinton evisorated the military, but Clinton's Army went through Saddams's Army like crap through a goose.
There is no point in going on with this rant. I suspect I wont change your mind and I know you wont change mine. I don't think colleges should allow military recruiters on campus. By doing so, they would be tacitly approving of recruiting.
chimpie got fifty million votes. That ought to be a solid recruiting base.

t

[bobbieinok]

63. didn't Nuremberg trial court say pre-emptive war is a war crime????

[Rose Siding]

26. What a total mischaracterization of the issue

We should applaud schools that don't permit groups to discriminate. (which has NOTHING AT ALL to do with disparaging those who serve)

If a college jr (straight, of course) has thought through the consequences of "enrolling" :eyes: in the military, they can find their way to a local recruiting office. -Just like my daughter did, btw.

[CWebster]

27. respond:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0309-06.htm

[IrateCitizen]

28. Another non-military person preaching from their lofty perch

:eyes:

Let me set this straight for you, OK. I spent 5 years as an Army ROTC cadet, and nearly 8 years as a commissioned officer in the Army Reserve. So, I think I'm pretty well qualified to speak on military matters, at least moreso than the armchair warriors of the DLC and TNR and this thread.

The military is NOT a positive organization. Sure, it teaches you self-discipline and fosters comraderie -- but at a tremendous cost. It stridently discourages independent through, free expression, or critical thinking. It is an institution whose sole purpose is the waging of war -- the dealing out of death and destruction on a massive scale. As such, it glorifies violence and killing, and forces anyone who enters it to either surrender a portion of their humanity, or to be completely alienated within military culture.

Chickenshits like Will Marshall, Al From and Peter Beinart write this pablum because it will never be them or their progeny within the ranks of the military. They'll instead continue their shrieking for the glorification of military culture from their posh offices in Washington DC, talking all the while of the need for a "strong military" and "willingness to use it around the globe" while making the DC cocktail party circuit. Meanwhile, other people's sons and daughters -- those without the means to avoid it -- will be sent halfway around the globe to kill and die for a senseless cause.

Crawl back under your rock, mdguss. You know not of what you speak.

[chaumont58]

57. Hear! Hear!

Anyone who has spent any amount of time at all on active duty will back up what you say. The military is not a place for creative thinking. Just the opposite.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

79. kick

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IrateCitizen]

31. It's always the armchair warriors glorifying the military...

Thank God there's plenty of us on this board who have actually been INSIDE the military for a period of time to dispel the oft-repeated myths!

Not only should they have to roam the halls of VA hospitals, but new 'cruits should also have to spend a good bit of time with PTSD sufferers and see footage of combat in all its bloody, horrible "glory" seen looped over and over again, complete with shots of examples of "collateral damage" under the age of 14.

Then, if they still feel that military service is noble, by all means they should sign up.

[mdguss]

38. Whatever:

If you want to find a way to lose elections really fast, ban military recruiters from college campuses. If you want a draft, ban military recruiters from college campuses.

College students are adults. They have the ability to make informed decisions about their careers. An some people, despite what you all say, may actually want to join the military. Why not let the recruiters on college campuses? It's not like the recruiters are going to kidnap college students and force them into military service in Iraq. Everybody that joins the military now damn well knows that they might/probably will face combat. There's been a decline in enlistments because of that.

But the far-left once again says, "you can't speak unless you agree with us." FYI--I've put in five years of service to the Democratic Party. I've helped people that range from conservative Democrats to liberals get elected. But to say that I can't talk about this issue because I've never served is BS. I graduated from college and attend graduate school--both public schools where recruiters are allowed. This is absolutely a non-issue, and one that frankly makes us Democrats look like idiots. The kids that want to join the military will anyway whether or not campus recruiters are on campus. The kids that don't want to join, won't. But recruiters do serve the purpose of minimizing the anger between opponents and supporters of the war--something that is critical for the country.

For the record, I once thought about joining the military, but I have a medical condition that prevents military service.

[CWebster]

40. If, as you say,they will join anyway

Why make it a part of our cultural landscape as a good and healthy thing to ship our children off to do the dirty work of the world's policemen for the economic and political ambitions of the few who wrap their entire criminal enterrise in the flag?


How noble:

[mdguss]

43. 99.99999999987% of soldiers aren't in that picture:

It's helpful because students will know that soldiers aren't what people like you make them out to be. They're people who take a knowingly dangerous job, perform it to the best of their ability, and follow orders (as long as those orders are constitutional; soldiers have a responsibility to not follow unconsitutional or illegal orders--as they swear to uphold the constitution and laws of the US).

If a recrutier is on campus, people can get BOTH sides of the story, and they can filter out the BS like the post above.

[IrateCitizen]

50. Bwahahahaha!!!

as long as those orders are constitutional; soldiers have a responsibility to not follow unconsitutional or illegal orders--as they swear to uphold the constitution and laws of the US

Once again showing your ignorance about all things military. Illegal orders come down in wartime all the time. It happened in Vietnam, it's happening now. But if you try and refuse those orders, it doesn't matter if they're unconstitutional or not -- you'll end up with your ass in a sling.

Once again, the difference between someone who knows how the military REALLY operates from having been in it, and someone who is an armchair patriot cheering on the military from the sidelines.

[dameocrat]

70. I doubt they would get anyone to fight this stupid war

even if they allowed them on campus. Having said that if the neocons and the dlc friends want more dead meat for Iraq they should call for a draft so their kids have to serve too.

Recruters do nothing to minimize anger for the war, other than recrute mercinaries who will fight imperialist wars. I want a draft.

[dameocrat]

69. No the DLC is a selfish republican organization

that wants other people sons to die in Bush's stupid wars. I want a draft just so their kids end up in the military rather than the children of the poor.

[BuelahWitch]

37. Your kids first, Will Marshall!

I think we should find out which DLC members have draft age children and send them some forms...

And send the troops over there now HOME!!!!!

[mdguss]

41. All this college students don't have the facts stuff is BS:

College students are in an environment (and most campuses) that is neutral to slightly anti-war. Most college professors are moderates, but if somebody is going to join the military, they can pretty easily find an anti-war professor that will tell them the reasons not to join. College students are adults; they can make their own informed decisions about joining the military. And they're in a position to get both sides of the issue quiet easily--if recruiters are allowed on campus.

[CWebster]

42. The lies recruiters tell:

http://www.join-snafu.org/recruiter/cwhite.htm

[mdguss]

44. Supposed lies:

I don't really believe that. Recrutiers that lie don't last long. And you think that there aren't people on college campuses hell-bent on "exposing the lies of military recruiters," I'd say 95% of college campuses have at least one professor that fits that description. Students can get both sides of the issue and make their own decision. That's the way it should be. There is nothing wrong with recruiters on campus.

[Rose Siding]

49. Would you believe a US Congressman and a recruiting brochure?

snip>
A veteran in my Congressional District furnished me with a copy of a recruiting brochure published in 1991 entitled "Army Benefits." Under a heading advertising "superb health care," the brochure states: "Health care is provided to you and your family members while you are in the Army, and for the rest of your life if you serve a minimum of 20 years of active federal service to earn your retirement." Imagine the surprise of those who serve for 20 years only to discover that the promised long-term health care is not available to them.

http://www.house.gov/inslee/issues/veterans/editorial.html

Lies.

[IrateCitizen]

52. The job of recruiters is to meet their quota, PERIOD.

If they have to lie to do it, they lie. I personally have heard of recruiters telling kids that if they signed up they would not be sent to war.

Recruiters lie all the time. Anyone remotely familiar with them and their job -- along with many former recruiters -- will tell you as much.

[Beacho]

45. This sounds more like friggin' Hannity

"But the far-left once again says, "you can't speak unless you agree with us."


This is the same clap trap I hear on hate radio, Bubba Oreilly, Hannity, Coulter, etc, etc.


Just what is your definition of 'far left'?

Which poster has said, "you can't speak unless you agree with us"?

I've seen plenty of posters here saying exactly the opposite regarding allowing recruiters on campus, we just want to take it a step further.


Blubbering about the 'far left' is not an answer to these suggestions

(edited to add some more)

"Most college professors are moderates, but if somebody is going to join the military, they can pretty easily find an anti-war professor that will tell them the reasons not to join."

I think talking to soldiers will do more than some academic, who may or may not have served, and therefore is just as useless as any 'armchair general'.

[mdguss]

46. I only use the term far-left:

Because the way out progressives always call me/the DLC (which I am a member of) Republicans, losers, other various names. Though now that I think about it, leftist fundamentalism is a better description--as I know some leftists who are good people who are open to new ideas. So the term far left is probably wrong.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

78. and DLCer's call we non DLCer's "un-American"

If anything, the DLC IS UNAMERICAN for aiding Bush.

[Beacho]

47. Not the same thing

Stop playing the victim, it's pathetic

You're getting ridden pretty hard. But you are not being censored and there is no conspiracy to shut you up. Leveling criticism is not the same as saying shut up.

Unlike MY experience at the hands of the DLC, which has shut out my liberal ass for the past twelve or so years. I'm hardly a hard lefty either.


I think it's your obtuseness that's irritating people more than your politics

[Padraig18]

51. And liberal, career-military officers is a bad thing because....?

:shrug:

[FightinNewDem]

54. You know the real answer

These characters believe that the military is somehow an inherently evil institution. Oh, they will occasionally pay lip service to the troops, but scratch the surface, and you realize find a nasty, condescending ignorance about folks who serve in the military.

Oh, and before the lynch mob descends, I have served in the military, and remain subject to ING recall.

[Beacho]

55. What 'characters' would those be?

And would you mind pointing them out.

[mdguss]

56. Brilliant!!!!!!!!

Fightingnewdem, Thank you for stating the absolute truth. And thank you for your service to the country. I will always challenge the "military is evil" crowd. THe military isn't for everybody, but it is there to serve our collective national interest.

[Don1]

58. Conservative Arguments

Using Social Security money to fund the war on non-existent WMDs does not serve the interest of the people. Cancelling 50 Department of Education programs and diverting that money to the military does not serve the interest of the people.

These actions serve the interest of the defense contractors who are making billions of dollars off of tens of thousands of dead Iraqi children.

The military is not "evil." It is, however, a tool for the man. I stand up to the man. Why don't you?

[Don1]

59. What is Evil?

We were told to go to war against Iraq because of non-existent WMDs. We were lied to. Lying is evil.

Defense contractors are making billions of dollars in profits and overcharges from the Iraqi war. They love their money. The love of money is the root of all evil.

Tens of thousands of Iraqi children are dead as the result of lies and the love of money. Killing is evil. Killing especially for the result of money and as a result of lies is evil.

I don't think the military is evil. I think that soldiers are duped into fighting an immoral war. I think that the Commander-in-Chief and his corporate cronies are evil. So don't put words in my mouth.

And by the way, I served my country, too, so back off.

[jonnyblitz]

60. the military DISCRIMINATES

I guess that doesn't bother many of you DLC apologists. I am a 10 year vet so don't even try to play this "more patriotic than thou, persecuted by the EEVVVIL LIBRULS " thing with me. I guess it isn't always the other side that plays this lame card.

[Don1]

61. I'll back you up.

My military oath was not only to follow the orders of the President, but it was do so as long as those orders were in the bounds of justice. Furthermore, the other part of my oath was to defend the Constitution. As such, I will defend your liberty and the liberty of other Americans who may be discrimated against.

Non-secular version of oath:
"I, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
So help me God!"
http://www.mikenew.com/oath1.html

[leesa]

62. The DLC needs to be brought down. They are GOP operatives.

[Carolab]

64. And still "competing with Dean" I see. SAD, isn't it? n/t

[wyldwolf]

65. I've seen many uninformed paranoid statements on DU...

...but this one (and it's been posted before) is damn hysterical.

[paineinthearse]

67. I am a veteran and take offense at being called "military-minded" nt

[erpowers]

72. Sure

My question is where are his kids? If he wants Democrats to ask colleges to allow military recuirters to come on their campuses than he should be pushing his kids to join the military. I do not have a problem with military recuriters going on college campuses and I really support the military. However, I contend that many of the same people who are pushing people to allow the military on campuses are not putting their kids in the military. If he wants the Democrats to work harder to get recuirters on college campuses he should put his kids in the military.

[erpowers]

73. Democrat Should

Democrats actually need to point out that many of the Republicans that act as if they are patriotic avoided the draft during Vietnam when they were young enough to join the military. In addition, Democrats should point out that large amounts of the money that goes into the defenst budget does not go to the soldiers themselves.

[demokatgurrl]

74. The DLC is becoming irrelvant

Excellent article in the recent issue of The Nation. DLC thinks it made Bill Clinton- actually, Clinton made the DNC. And now it's no longer needed, or helpful. The DLC ripped Dean mercilessly. Now Dean has come out ahead (well not as much as if he had been elected President) and the DLC can just go lick its wounds as far as I'm concerned.
The DLC held a forum in Philly last fall and invited the Democratic Presidential candidates. NO ONE came.

[FightinNewDem]

75. At least get a few facts straight

No amount of effort seems to convince the DLC-haters to learn all of the facts, but please try and get the basics straight, will you?

There was no DLC forum in Philly last fall.

The DLC held its national conference in Philly in July, 2003.

The presidential candidates were not invited to the 7/03 meeting.

The presidential candidates were invited to the 2002 conference in New York.

Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman and Gephardt all spoke. Clark sent a staffer to distribute copies of his book "Waging Modern War", which had just been released. Had people known Clark was pondering a presidential run, he most likely would have been on the agenda as well.

[JerseygirlCT]

76. Huh?

"Democrats rightly criticize the Bush administration for policies that have stretched our armed forces to the breaking point; we should also be willing to help them meet their recruitment goals..."

How the heck do those two things go together? Kids are being lied to and recruited through all sorts of devious means. They prey on poor kids who simply want to go to college, or learn a job skill. Then they send them over to die for a morally bankrupt war. Why should that be supported?

I feel terribly for the poor kids who find themselves there now. They're in an awful spot. I want them all home and safe. And I want them used the next time only when necessary and not for some cowboy's dreams of empire.

I think it would be fabulous should recruitment goals totally flop. How better to send a message to the old farts in charge that this war was a mistake and they don't have the human resources to play with lives anymore.

This is exactly why I never support a draft. The people need to be able to vote with their bodies, as it were. If the old boys cannot prove their case to the people they want to fight and die, then perhaps they shouldn't be adventuring.