Nathan Newman wrote:
>On Aug 1, 2004, at 11:07 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>> Of course, in reality the Dems have never been a peace party - as Bob
>> Dole put it, exaggerating only slightly, all the wars of the 20th
>> century were Democrat wars - but perception was that it was wussy and
>> weak, i.e., feminine. Now it's clear - no girlie-men allowed.
>
>Maybe you were watching a different speech than me.
-Did I hallucinate the salute, the retired general, and the band of brothers?
My point was "peace" does not equate with "hating the military and hoping we are unable to respond militarily if we are attacked." Being introduced by a man with three limbs missing is actually not the best advertisement for war as a fun endeavor, especially one who notes the conservative hostility to properly funding health care for diabled veterans.
I'm all for the left "capturing the flag" of military salutes et al, and actually supporting the troops through better veterans health care, and even better, not sending them overseas to die in the first place. But if the best way to achieve that goal is to have a bunch of veterans running interference, that's the strongest "pro-peace" approach possible.
nathan