I, too, find Rand Paul creepy.

[No Elephants]

Yes, the media is fawning all over Christie. According to what I read, so did New Jersey Democrats, many endorsing him. (We had a similar phenomenon in Massachusetts when Scott Brown ran for the Senate, though one of the Democratic endorsers, Flynn, former ambassador to the Vatican, is basically a Republican at this point due to anti-choice.) I think some national Democrats are speaking highly of Christie as well. And there are already polls showing Hillary would beat Christie in New Jersey.

In all, I believe we are going to have even less of an illusion of choice come 2016 primaries than we usually do--and that's been less and less since Bubba ran. Maybe even before that, but I don't know.

[Enthusiast]

1. I think the misinformation mechanism

or the media establishment, as is more commonly known, can destroy any presidential candidate. We no longer have a viable choice except on social issues. I guess the case could be made that the Republican Party has become the party of war. War on other nations and war on the 99%.

[No Elephants]

2. I think a very similar case can be made about the Democrats.

[Enthusiast]

3. The Democrats haven't started a war since Vietnam.

They supported a W Bush war that was based on falsified intelligence. Democrats might have had second thoughts had they known there really were no WMDs. That's false equivalency, No Elephants.

[No Elephants]

4. I very respectfully, but very strongly, disagree.

You said:

I guess the case could be made that the Republican Party has become the party of war. War on other nations and war on the 99%.

Note that your original statement--the one to which I responded-- did not limit the time period in question to post-Vietnam, nor did it define "war" in any particular way and the original statement included war on the 99%.

To that original statement, I replied:

I think a very similar case can be made about the Democrats.

.

"Very similar case" is not the same as saying the two parties are equivalent. (I would not even begin to know how to equate wars.)

In all, I think my reply to your statement--as you originally stated it--was accurate.


It may be convenient to start the "war" clock after Vietnam, but that was not part of the statement to which I replied. And, with all due respect to Teflon Bill, it all depends on what your definition of "war" is.

Here is a list of American military engagements (many,many more than I had realized). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

In some cases, you may have to look up who was President at the time, but most of the entries seem to mention a President. (The nature of our activities is often described euphemistically. Bearing in mind that our original involvement in Vietnam and other locales was described as "advisory," or some such. So, I read broadly an entry on a list of U.S. military operations that says that we are assisting the Philippines with anti-terrorist activity.)

Looking at only some of the major conflicts during the last century--Democrats took us into the only two world wars in which we have been engaged, the Korean War and, for the most part, into the Vietnam War, but Vietnam is more complicated than the other three I just mentioned.

As far as we know, Truman sent only money to Vietnam. I think Eisenhower sent some troops that were theoretically only "military advisors," but Kennedy escalated and, LBJ, don't even ask. For his part, though, Nixon kept it going until Congress denied him any more funds. Still, I think I have to blame the Democrats more.

Carter, to his credit, got the hostages back from Iran without going to war, but there were other military actions during his administration and Reagans and Poppy's and Clinton's. Poppy Bush was also responsible for a relatively limited war in Desert Storm.

As far as Iraq, I don't buy for a minute that Democrats voted for it only because Bush fooled them about WMDs. In fact, I don't think he fooled them at all, not even a teensy.

As you watched Condi, Cheney, Powell and others making the rounds of the news shows to sell the Iraq War to the American public, you knew the reasons to go to war were being trumped up, didn't you? I did. Susan Sarandon did. DU did. I would guess millions of Americans did. It was blatantly obvious.

On what basis shall we assume that that the general public is all that much smarter than very smart people like Hillary, Biden, Schumer, and the rest of Democrats in the federal government who voted for the Iraq War, some of whom had been in one house or another of congress for decades?

They also got intelligence all along during those decades to which you and I were not privy. I think they were more than our equals in being able to figure out what Bushco was doing; and I think they did figure it out.

And, let's not forget, they also voted for the Global War on Terror and "Homeland Security," which, frankly, I see as war on us. Those things may be far more significant in the long run than the Iraq War. Oh, and the Afganistan War, for which they also voted, and which had nothing at all to do with any evidence trumped up by Bushco.

Obama had no problem whatever with the war in Afghanistan. Indeed, while Bush had pretty much let it dwindle, Obama surged it soon after taking office.

Not only that, but, despite saying during his campaign that Iraq was the "wrong war," Obama also attempted to get Iraq to agree to our staying beyond the withdrawal date that Dummya had negotiated.

We are not still in Iraq, IMO, only because Iraq politely said they'd just as soon we leave on the agreed date. Well, actually, we are still in Iraq, supposedly only protecting our embassy and military bases there, but we still have a significant number of troops there. And if Iraq were to give us a green light, we'd be back in a Baghdad minute.

And then (shhh), there's Pakistan, Yemen, the Philippines and, apparently, anywhere populated by brown people that Obamaco feels like doing something.


Obama also got into military action in Libya, though not (as far as we know "boots on the ground", but, if bombing is not war, what the hell is it?

Ten members of Congress sued him for going to war without Congressional approval (including my own much admired former rep.) and Boehner challenged Obama's action on legal grounds, but went no further than a letter.

The plaintiffs are Democratic Reps. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, John Conyers of Michigan and Michael Capuano of Massachusetts and Republican Reps. Walter Jones and Howard Coble of North Carolina, Tim Johnson and Dan Burton of Indiana, Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland and Ron Paul of Texas.

The suit is just the latest clash between Congress and the White House over the Libya intervention.

Rep. John Boehner, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives urged Mr. Obama on Tuesday to explain the legal grounds for the continued U.S. military involvement and set a Friday deadline for the commander in chief's response.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-20071286.html

That case was dismissed because the ten plaintiffs could not show that they were speaking for the House as a whole (no standing).

Obama was also going to start bombing Syria. The general public may believe its calls changed his mind. Against all my beliefs in the utter futility of such calls, I even called myself. However, I do not believe for a minute that calls from the general public changed Obama's mind. For that matter, the only reason the public got focused on Obama's plans for Syria was a media campaign initiated by a Republican member of the House.

There was a letter, initiated by that Republican and signed by about 150 members of Congress, Democrat and Republican. There was also another written legal challenge by Boehner.

IMO, I think, that time, the Obama administration feared that the house might initiate a lawsuit with bipartisan support. If so, that would would have eliminated the standing problem that had proven fatal to the earlier lawsuit over undeclared war in Libya.

If initiated and won, the lawsuit would have set a precedent that Obama and future presidents would have to abide by, unless they wanted to openly abrogate the rule of law. And fear of that precedent, IMO, is what stopped Obama from bombing Syria. (Even a lawsuit with bipartisan support might have been enough to halt Obama. There was enough bipartisan support that it would have been impossible to chalk it up to Republican hatred of Obama or the usual dismissals.)

Last but not least, Obama's "extra curricular" killings in the "global war on terror" have far exceeded those of Bush.

As far as "tough talk" that has never actually manifested in actual acts of war, some Republicans engage in that, but so do some Democrats, though McCain is the only one I know of who set his pseudo macho bullshit to music.

So, out of all that, which party can most fairly be called the party of war? I certainly do think a case can be made for whichever political party one desires to nail with that label.

Besides, originally, you also mentioned the war on the 99%. The Democrats have done exceedingly well with that war, too.

As with physical wars, verbiage is one thing, action another. When it comes to actual legislation, I'd be very hard pressed to say that what Republicans have actually done and tried to do exceeds what Democrats have actually done and tried to do.

[Enthusiast]

5. I stand by what I said. The Republican Party is the war party.

[No Elephants]

6. As do I. They both are war parties, wars against people and countries.

I'd give you that Republicans may have the edge on war rhetoric, but both parties are odious when it comes to actual actions against "people and other living things."