My current take is that getting money from the defense industry is going to be more or less unavoidable. Every candidate is going to have defense contractors in their state/district, and I suppose to some extent, all entities must be entitled some voice in the gov't.

But I would make a distinction between having former Blackwater officials in my ranks (not sure if Edwards is close with these guys, but I know Romney is) with defense-connected industries generally. Building tanks, destroyers or missiles is one thing; training armed mercenaries to go around shooting things, policing our borders or defending gov't buildings is quite another. The lack of gov't direction and oversight of private contractors is terrifying to me.

The important things I would focus on are whether we have a guy who is going to play by the rules when he is office... not violate FISA, not send just about anybody off to be waterboarded, disregard the Federal Reserve, de-claw gov't oversight of industry and the environment... this list is endless.

I think Edwards is more or less on the right track with this stuff. At least with Edwards we can imagine a return to legal restraints on Presidential (or in the Bush case, vice-presidential) power.

He hasn't actually responded to anyone's arguments here on the merits. (Not once!) Every single one of his posts is one of three things: a straw argument, an ad hominem attack, or total gibberish.

The typical exchange...

Person A: Look, we're spending "X" amount of dollars on our defense budget, I think this is wrong because "XYZ" .... And what's worse is that it's not even debatable! We have to just "assume" this money is being used correctly and really is necessary for our defense. Where is it going? How is the gov't being charged? $500 screwdrivers? Come on.

Proximity: No you're stupid! You libs are all the same. I just think our country needs to be strong in the face of terror!

Person B: Well, I agree we should be strong, but being strong in the face of terror doesn't mean we should invade some random country that had nothing to do with terrorist attacks. And it doesn't mean we have to spend outrageous amounts of our tax dollars on god knows what, as the money frequently ends up in some black hole of private contractor corruption.

Proximity: Well, unlike YOU, I support the troops! I don't view them as weaklings!

????

Just ignore this buffoon.

American military

I think the assertion that randomly killing civilians in Iraq is part and parcel of the military's remit there indicates a pretty low view of the type of person in the military. Either that or they think of them as mindless drones which is equally insulting.

May be he was a bad egg, but people shooting their mouths of in this fashion should realise that the slander of millions Americans is not going to help their cause.

The American military in Iraq have not been squeaky clean; failures of disipline and morality have been well-documented. But they are not the fascistic monsters or hollowed out drones of the left's imagination; it, by and large, a professional organisation whose conduct is exemplary by historical standards.

Prescriptions for a smaller military is a prescription for a smaller America - an America that says to our allies 'your defence is not my problem'. I understand that appeals to some people, but it's a niave view in my opinion.

Fine, but no one here is saying this or arguing this. You really don't have a leg to stand on here, do you? So like your buddy George W. Bush, you "make up" an absurd opposing argument that no one could possibly support, such as "the others want to surrender to the terrorists," and conveniently disguise your own stupid policies as the antidote to the straw argument.

So, if we don't spend obscene amounts of our own tax dollars on trumped-up services, $500 screwdrivers, and opaque contracts to "reconstruct" Iraq, we're going to be conquered and our women will be raped by dark haired men with mustaches... right.

Try again, simpleton.

Funny, I was just reading about this in Greenspan's recent autobiography.

According to him, Soviet spending didn't increase at all throughout the 1980's. They were already broke; Gorbachev was brought in before that to come in and reform the system. We all know his policy was not more sabre-rattling, and military spending, but glasnost, perestroika, and rapprochement with the West.

The idea that Reagan beat the Soviets by coming up with the "brilliant" strategy of outspending them is a fairy tale. I suppose it does have the convenient result of justifying increased military expenditures... "hey, helped us beat communism! Is this a great country or what?!"

The USSR's economy was so rotten it would've collapsed when it did regardless of how much money was blown on Star Wars, etc.