The collaborationist wing (DLC) wants 100,000 more troops.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Centrists who contend Democrats cannot retake the White House until voters trust the party to protect them said Sunday the Army should expand by 100,000 soldiers and that colleges should open their campuses to military recruiters.
ADVERTISEMENT

"A Democrat has to show the toughness to govern," said Al From, founder of the Democratic Leadership Council. "People don't doubt that Republicans will be tough."

From argued that national security and safety are threshold issues for swing voters who increasingly are trending Republican.

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton addresses the group Monday, as does Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=548&e=1&u=/ap/20050724/ap_on_el_ge/democrats_moderates

The usual suspects plead with the Democrats to become Republicans.

[Pepperbelly]

1. What makes me mad about this is not ...

the objection to all things DLC but rather the ignorance and perfidity displayed by From in this.

Our entanglement in Iraq distorts what we have. There are 125K + stuck in Iraq who should not be there. It in no way serves the interests of either the USA or Iraq.

We should actually take a look at what it is that we want our military to do and tailor it accordingly. We do not need to spend our lives and treasure for adventurism, colonialism, or nationalism. We need our military for the protection of our interests. IMO, our interests include our own physical safety, the physical safety of our friends with whom we have treaty obligations, the protection of the sea lanes to insure the flow of commerce across the planet and to us in particular, and to meet peace-keeping committments we have made to the UN and NATO.

What would it take to do those things? What is the purpose of our military? Before increasing it, we should really examine that question.

[garthranzz]

2. It's all in the spin...

Did you see that list of who served that circulated during the election? With the exception of Clinton, almost every prominent Democrat served in the military. Almost no Republican of the post-Dole, Bush the First generation did - and since Shrub was AWOL, he didn't either.

Toughness to govern? What does that mean? Willing to use force? Clinton used force, about as much as Reagan did.

All it takes, imho, is refusing to allow your enemy to label, and thus identify, you.

[Union Thug]

3. These people are so removed from traditional democrats..

>>>"A Democrat has to show the toughness to govern," said Al From, founder of the Democratic Leadership Council. "People don't doubt that Republicans will be tough."<<<<

TOUGH??? Do any of these 'elite' propertied democrats have ANY idea what tough really means? Does it mean putting some bullshit sticker on the back of your SUV about supporting troops? Does it mean fighting wars with a working class proxy because the children of the rich never have to serve? FUCK THESE PEOPLE..

I'll tell you about tough.. I saw tough. My dad used to come home bloodied from battles on the streets over union and labor rights. When conservative fuckwads decided they would break unions and strikes with their thug strong-arms, the tough in the labor movement met them and fought back.

DLC dems.... tough????..what a fucking joke... almost as hilarious as pilsbury dough boy pussies like Karl Rove, or punk-ass rich kids like george W talking about being tough...

[quiet.american]

5. I hear you

The repeated and unforgivable thing the DLC people do is reinforce Republican talking points even better than Republicans do.

Republicans talk tough, but as their long roster of chickensh*t, chickenhawk lip flappers demonstrate, when it comes to their "toughness", talk is cheap for them and expensive for the rest of us in blood and treasure.

God bless your dad, by the way.

[newswolf56]

11. Best tell-it-like-it-is post I've ever seen on DU. Right on!

My own father fought in similar clashes.

[Upfront]

4. What Crap!

Lets be tough enough to withdraw now.

[ClintonTyree]

6. You're correct..........

withdrawing WOULD be the toughest thing to do. "Staying the course" is easy. All it demands is to keep making the same fucking mistakes over and over.

Bringing our soldiers home NOW would be a TOUGH decision. Maybe From can sink his stupid teeth into THAT ONE for a while! :grr:

[Robbins]

7. Iraq

I am sorry to tell them that we should not send 1 more soldier over
there. What needs to be done as soon as Iraq signs a Constitution we
start pulling out. They have to take care of themselves. That Is what
happened when we got Independence from england. Any Democrat who says
send more troops will not get my support.

[Al-CIAda]

8. They're only 3 months behind PNAC declarations. See, we ARE catching up!

:sarcasm:

[goforit]

9. Sign up their kids!!!

[whistle]

10. This is clearly a situation where Bush and his top advisors....

...created a mess, are hiding the real numbers of cost and U.S. casualties and now democrats are expected to come in and clean up the mess. Politically this is really dangerous for the Democratic Centrist movement, because they will be seen as hawks by the more liberal wing of the party while the republicans who are desperately holding onto power will be given the authority to double the cost and risks in Iraq and other areas. This is no solution because the commander in chief pulls all the strings and won't do what is right to stabilize the situation in Iraq. I am afraid that this trump card of expanding the operations and manpower in Iraq can't be dealt effectively at this time. Maybe the are trying to embarrass shrub and the republicans knowing they won't take the bait.