Veterans take on new battle: run for office

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/us_house/articles/2005/11/27/veterans_take_on_new_battle_run_for_office?mode=PF

Veterans take on new battle: run for office
'Fighting Dems' see options in the war against terrorism
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | November 27, 2005
PHILADELPHIA -- Bryan Lentz, toting an Army-issue duffel bag, slips into the booth.


''You either have to buy into the rhetoric or stand up. I am standing up."
Lentz, who as a major in the 82d Airborne helped to rebuild the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, is running for Congress. He is one of at least nine veterans vying to become the first soldiers of the post-9/11 military to be elected to the House of Representatives, according to party leaders.
They say their experience makes them well-suited to help successfully extricate the United States from Iraq and to more effectively fight the war on terrorism, which they fear is being lost in the Muslim world's court of public opinion.
Eight of the nine are running as Democrats. At least three are lawyers. Most went to the front lines from the Reserves or the National Guard. Some have been recruited for office by party leaders; others say they are trying to get the national parties to pay attention to them.

They say their experience makes them well-suited to help successfully extricate the United States from Iraq and to more effectively fight the war on terrorism, which they fear is being lost in the Muslim world's court of public opinion.

Don't parade your role in an immoral occupation as if it is something meriting votes. Shooting up an innocent country simply isn't impressive--not if you're seeking office in what should be a peaceful republic.

In this case, the claims aren't even logical. Having just had a hand in the deaths of over 100,000 Muslims, why would these men help us win in the "Muslim world's court of public opinion"? Look! Back from the Crusades, and now in office!

For that matter, at least some of these guys want to deepen the war by sending more troops. This proves that not only are they no better than pols we have, experience has taught them nothing.

What's the matter with this fucking party? If the leadership thinks that more of the Kerryesque "we'll fight the war better" silliness is a winning ticket, it's even more pathetic than I thought!

To be fair, while the invasion of Iraq was the wrong thing, the Iraqi government certainly had blood on its hands. I do believe that any sort of ground experience in war enables a person to make better decisions about war. Also, a soldier deserves instant credibility on both sides of the aisle. The military is one of the most noble callings in America and if someone who has served is running for an office, I consider it a benefit.

I don't know all of their positions, but it appears to me that most of them, like Paul Hackett, are running against the war.

Also, if their is one mistake that I had thought that anti war activists had learned from their mistakes in opposing Vietnam, is that it is both counterproductive and unfair to demonize servicemen (or women) who have been ordered into awful circumstances.

I do agree that "instant credibility" is, in any rigorous debate an overstatement, but I think you are making a greater error than the candidate whom you quoted.

Realistically, they seem to be centrist Democrats, but anything is better than neocon theocrats running the show now.

French Surrender Monkeys"??

Shouldn't take long. They support the troops as long as the troops shut their mouths and pose pretty for a picture with the pretzledent.

Bet the Freepers will spit on these vets faces. Anyone want to take a wager on it?