Are Dems really soft on Security?

The Republicans like to say that Democrats are weak on defense and that they want to “cut and run” from Iraq. Actually, the US has the manpower, the technology, the money and everything else needed to end the mess in Iraq in six months or less. But the Republican administration is so weak on defense that they are afraid to commit the resources necessary to get the job done. Iraq should have been over a long time ago. Why won’t the Republican administration do what has to be done?

As other examples of the Dems being weak on defense, take a look at what happened in the 20th century. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, asked for and got a declaration of war from Congress during World War I, although the US was not under direct attack. Then, in the 1930s, when Hitler was rampaging in Europe and England was desperate because Nazi subs almost starved her out, FDR, a Democrat, no less, initiated lend-lease, which brought the US merchant and warships into direct military action against Germany. When Japan attacked the US, there was no hesitancy about declaring war.

Then came Korea. When North Korea attacked our ally, South Korea, Harry Truman, another wimpy Democrat, sent troops into action at once and then sought United Nations approval. Also, it was Truman who initiated the US resistance to Communist expansion, which become the Cold War.

Next was the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy, a Democrat, mobilized the US Navy and forced the Russians to back off.

Following that, we got mired down in Viet Nam, undertaken to prevent the possible spread of Communism. Again, Democrats Kennedy and Johnson were the ones acting to protect the US.


So, what am I missing? Where are all the cutting and running Democrats?