thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 25, 2004 16:00:50 GMT -5
Remember that disasterous ploy of Gore's when in the middle of a debate, he walked right up to Bush to stare him down? Sending the triple amputee Cleland to wheel up to the Crawford ranch with every intent of having him get nowhere was more pathetic and more shameless. Lets forget for a minute that Vietnam vets earned the right to be Editeded at Kerry's post-war attacks on their service. Who is keeping this swift boat vets for truth alive? Clearly it is Kerry, less clear is why. I am waiting to see Bush send a little boy up to the gates of one of the Kerry mansions to ask him to stop Moveon.org- which has slandered Bush mercilessly but is just as independent of Kerry as Swiftboat groups are of Bush. Hey Kerry- its actually up to you to silence your critics- not Bush you pompous ass. I smell desperation to keep this about Kerry the Vietnam Vet- and delay a serious look at that long legislative record as long as possible.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 25, 2004 16:59:25 GMT -5
Aside from how pathetic it looked, you would think that Cleland would be at least a little bit hesitant to wheeled out there as a prop in this stupid ploy. Do you think they were sitting around thinking, boy, what a great photo op to have a Vietnam Vet in a wheelchair being rebuffed by an armed guard at the entrance to the President's ranch?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 25, 2004 17:22:30 GMT -5
That's a rather unfortunate post, IMO.
Max Cleland has every right to do what he did and has every right to be upset because of the slanderous charges made against his friend John Kerry, to whom Max gave his family Bible at the beginning of the campaign. There is no shame in what he did because he is willing to stand behind a person who he admires and take the battle to someone who is hiding behind a front group.
I also would dispute your idea that John Kerry attacked the service of people in the military. His testimony to Congress was a slam on the leaders in the military, Nixon, DoD, et al., but it didn't strike me as having a message of "Have You No Shame?" to the soldiers. Unfortunately, it is hard to distinguish that because soldiers are trained to be obedient and to respect those in command, who Kerry criticized.
A theme in that criticism is also the suggestion that we lost the war because of the dissenters at home. I think this blame is misguided because I see our failures in Vietnam to be failures of policy and the failure to see that the war was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. The goals were undefined and vague, and there was no mission presented that the soldiers could have accomplished. Regardless of what Kerry said, we faced an enemy that was willing to make unlimited sacrifices, which is something that we as a nation could not afford to do from a financial, social, political, and cultural point of view.
No one is attacking the SVBFT on the basis that they do not have a right to criticize. The criticism that needs to be made is that they have made serious accusations that lack the support of the documentary evidence and are indeed refuted by the Swift Boaters' previous statements on many of the subjects in question. The charges they've made about the medals do not hold water, although Kerry's testimony to Congress is a worthy topic for disagreement. I happen to think that the historical evidence supports Kerry's testimony and would like to see a debate on that.
I think your comment that Kerry is keeping this issue alive is made from a myopic point of view. I happen to think that the media has blown the story out of proportion and has given the Swift Boaters more play than they are due. You may say that Kerry has been on the news every day talking about the issue. I've read his speeches over the last few days and they discuss his plans for the future of America and deal very little with the Swift Boaters. The problem is that the media's overplay of the subject leads you and others to believe that Kerry is keeping it alive. Quite the contrary... He's interested in debating the issues.
Kerry has been the leader of the Dems since early March. Since that time, what MoveOn ads do you take issue with? You may remember that they ran an "AWOL" ad during the Dem primaries. Unfortunately, you seem to have forgotten that Kerry told them to take it down, which they did.
Again, your criticism misses the point here. Attacking one's service is a deplorable act. Plain and simple. It is wrong and you, Bush, and the Swift Boaters know it. Calling their service into question because of political disagreements is sickening. Bob Dole has done it when he said that Kerry didn't bleed for his country, and he knows better.
Feel free to run Kerry's testimony to Congress in its entirety. I agree that it is something that needs to be evaluated and discussed using Kerry's entire statements in their context.
Plus, silencing critics is something that Kerry does not believe in doing to my knowledge. He's more interested in a full debate on issues with all sides at the table. What is interesting is how much Bush has discussed the issues over the last few months. What is his plan for the next four years?
These ads were designed for a specific purpose and are running at a specific time in the election. They were designed to take Kerry and his ideas as set forth at the convention out of the news and to soften the media for the upcoming RNC.
As for his legislative record, I hope Bush brings it up. His commentaries about flip-flopping suggest a lack of understanding of the legislative process on Bush's part. Every issue or bill has its companion on the other side of the aise. On the 87 billion for emergency supplements, there were 2 bills. Both called for troop funding of approximately the same amount. They differed, however, on sources of funding. Kerry voted for the Dem bill before he voted against the Repub bill. There is no inconsistency on the matter other than to note that Kerry opposed the $20 billion slush fund for Halliburton in the Repub bill and didn't want another blank check to the Bush gov. in support of its tenuous Iraq strategy.
Anyway, that sort of elaborate discussion can't take place if Bush is not willing to debate face-to-face, which he has not agreed to do yet in any kind of real forum. It also cannot take place if the right is running a classless campaign against John Kerry.
It comes as no surprise, incidentally. These were the same folks who spread lies about John McCain, such as the rumor that he fathered a child out of wedlock, and the baby was black. Historically, this story-line has been played out in Nazi and Soviet propaganda films, so it is a bit shocking to hear it in America. Regardless, the truth of the matter is that McCain adopted a child from Mother Teresa's parish/convent in Bangladesh.
In my mind Kerry has no choice to fight back because, if he doesn't, the smear machine will come out and suggest that he has no balls to stand up and defend himself, so how can he defend this country? The next RNC talking point would suggest that he's French because of it.
Anyway, I find some of the bile that you spewed such as the "pompous ass" comment to be unfortunate dialogue that does not further the debate on this matter. On the other points, I respectfully submit that you are wrong and are missing the point about the SBVFT.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 25, 2004 18:21:13 GMT -5
I just don't dedicate the time to this board to even read your entire posts Jersey- don't take it personally, I wouldn't read a post that long even if a conservative wrote it. Just wanted you to know why I am increasingly in the habit of ignoring your posts- not out of animus- they are just too long to fit my attenuated allotment for this board and I don't want to address them in a half-ass manner. 3 years ago I would have been all over that with my own long essay....
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 25, 2004 19:04:56 GMT -5
Haha... Funny to hear that from someone who wants a discussion on the issues and someone who wants a discussion of one's Senate record, which most would agree is a laborious task. It is an interesting position coming from one who criticizes Kerry for his asking conservative veterans to pipe down.
So, Karl Rove can now look at you and say "Mission Accomplished." We've found another one who can be fooled by sound bytes and tacky political slogans. It is as if to say that you want Bush and Kerry debates to be something along these lines:
Bush: I'm a compassionate conservative and you're a flip-flopper. Not bad for a Massachusetts liberal.
Kerry: You're a Halliburton crony and right wing nut job.
Moderator: I'd like to thank the candidates for taking the time to share their views with us here tonight. The next debate is on September 30 live in Arizona. Good night.
What makes your comments even more sad is that you say that you don't have the time but then suggest that I'm wrong on the grounds that if you had time to respond, you'd honor us with the presence of your prose that would seemingly be above question or challenge.
I also doubt the veracity of your reason given here for not responding. A few weeks ago, it was that I did not have any credibility in your eyes on politics, which you retracted at a later date. At other times, you have echoed similar sentiments without a retraction. Today, your reasons seem slightly different.
Even still, you have made some rather lengthy posts, which take much longer, admittedly, than reading my posts, which admittedly are lengthy. If you have made this decision to devote less time to the board, my criticism here does not stand. I'll try to boil my points down to "sound bytes" or "talking points" in the future.
Even still, you claim to not have the time to read my posts, yet you say that you would need to write an essay in response, suggesting that you in fact did have the time to read the post but have elected not to respond. This may be an issue of time because response obviously takes more time than merely reading a post.
I don't take anything you say personally anymore. You have a track record of using bile and rather inflammatory speech to get your point across, such as the "pompous ass" comment or that you almost puked when you heard a former President speak. I've found in my experience that such people who use this language and use scream tactics tend to need to do so to dress up what are otherwise lightweight arguments.
I do, however, see a need to respond to many of your posts because many of them are based on either faulty facts or no facts at all. If that condition is not satisfied, they are also personal attacks against honorable people, such as Jimmy Carter along the lines of those against Bush that you denounce so passionately and with such supposed conviction and moral clarity.
Maybe you are right, since this could be the case, your time might be better spent reading some polls to see where this election stands at this time or to read a book about Vietnam other than Unfit for Command. If your time does not permit this, at least read Kerry's testimony in its context and that Congressional hearing in its entirety, including reaction from the Senators. It may shed some interesting light on what Vietnam was and how many veterans saw it.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 25, 2004 19:30:17 GMT -5
You can't even say "go to hell" in less than ten paragraphs.
I was trying to be kind by saying I don't read your posts because I don't have time which is partially true. I actually didn't say anything at all about the merit of them. But since you were rude in response, allow me to be more frank. Not only are your posts longwinded- they tend to exibit signs of immature thought- you can be all over the place in one post and still use the language of certainty. Your posts simply are not worth reading. A little more brevity would go along way- particularly when everything you say is repeated 8 different ways and not one of the thoughts parroted is your own. You think you are some paragon of even-handedness because you pay lip service to an admiration for McCain that is never explained. Go on in response as long as you wish, I for one am not interested.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,756
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 25, 2004 19:56:40 GMT -5
Historically, this story-line has been played out in Nazi and Soviet propaganda films, so it is a bit shocking to hear it in America. Historically speaking, mudslinging has been a part of American politics for as many as 200 years. Doesn't make it right of course, but it is not a recent phenomenon: --Thomas Jefferson was accused of being an atheist who would outlaw religion if elected. --John Quincy Adams was called a pimp by Andrew Jackson's supporters, while Jackson was assailed by his foes as a bigamist and the son of a black man. --James Fremont, the challenger to James Buchanan, was accused of being an illegitimate child and being secretly Catholic. (He was neither.) --Abraham Lincoln's wife was accused of being a Confederate spy. --Rutherford Hayes was accused of stealing from funds set up for widows of Union soldiers. --Opponents of Grover Cleveland, accused of fathering a child out of wedlock, heckled him in the press (and at campaign stops) with the chorus of, "Ma, ma, where's my pa?" --Republicans proclaimed in 1928 that if Al Smith were elected, all Protestant marriages would be voided and the White House would pledge allegiance to Rome. --In 1948, Harry Truman said a vote for Dewey was a vote for fascism. By comparison, the Swift Boats isn't in the same league as some of these past outrages.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 25, 2004 20:27:01 GMT -5
a You can't even say "go to hell" in less than ten paragraphs. I was trying to be kind by saying I don't read your posts because I don't have time which is partially true. I actually didn't say anything at all about the merit of them. But since you were rude in response, allow me to be more frank. Not only are your posts longwinded- they tend to exibit signs of immature thought- you can be all over the place in one post and still use the language of certainty. Your posts simply are not worth reading. A little more brevity would go along way- particularly when everything you say is repeated 8 different ways and not one of the thoughts parroted is your own. You think you are some paragon of even-handedness because you pay lip service to an admiration for McCain that is never explained. Go on in response as long as you wish, I for one am not interested. I never said that you said something about the merits of my posts in this thread prior to your most recent post. I was referencing comments made in other threads that you have perhaps forgotten. I am willing to provide links if you'd like, but to save time, I'll avoid that at this point. So, now I have been accused of "immature thought" and "being all over the place," which is interesting terminology given you are one who admits to have wanted to puke during the speech of a former President and who used "pompous ass" to describe John Kerry. Leaving the pot/kettle issue aside here, this comes one post after comparing my posts to an essay. Perhaps this was an ecord of word choice at that time. If so, then this criticism falls on its face. If it was the proper use of "essay" at that time, your recent criticism of my posts on the basis of their being all over the place suggests that you are all over the place in your criticism. The use of "essay" conjures up images of careful, organized analysis on my part, which your later post seeks to discredit with your characterization of them as all over the place. I do admit to presenting here what is, at times, lengthy and belabored argumentation. I do this because I believe that arguments are strong when facts are cited as means of back-up. If they do not demonstrate some level of certainty, then the argument, IMO, is fairly weak. In more lengthy essays, of course, some discussion would be made of counter-arguments, and I do my best here, but this is not something that I would tend to do in a message board format because one would need to mention what those arguments are and then offer evidence against them on top of that. (In the last post, for example, I paid lip service to the idea that the Swifties could definitely take up the issue of Kerry's testimony because it is relevant and at the heart of their dispute.) You say I make an argument in 8 different ways, that, I believe, to be effective to a certain degree. It draws upon 8 different facets of the argument that point to a conclusion. In the previous post, the conclusion/theme was to question your veracity (which you supported when you said that your previous statements were "partially true"), which I did using separate, but related, arguments. I could have elected to choose a different tact, like maybe saying that you were pulling a hit and run attack, but that would have distracted attention, I believe, away from a more central argument that I wanted to make. And to answer your question about not being able to say "go to [expletive omitted for board compliance reasons]," I don't believe in that. If I am going to call someone out, I'm going to be sure that I have something on which to base it, and I want to be perfectly comfortable with saying it in its entirety so the accused knows where I stand and for what reasons. You have made statements to me in the past on here that have the same undertones as the post that I just made. I did not respond with attacks at those times because I didn't find it to be an effective use of my time, and I didn't want to take threads down that road. My reason for calling you out today cannot be boiled down easily. For one thing, I don't appreciate folks who question the service of others as a front for what is a political attack (see Dole, who said Kerry didn't bleed in Vietnam or folks who now call out Dole because he admits that the shrapnel for one of his purple hearts came from a grenade that he threw). I don't appreciate folks who defend these guys either. Some may call me out on a double standard because Kerry called folks "war criminals." Some took this to be directed at the troops in Vietnam, and Kerry has since apologized for any confusion that may have occurred due to vagary or misinterpretation. I see Kerry's testimony and participation in anti-war activities to be directed at a different group, which is the political establishment that "abandoned the troops in Vietnam." My reason for calling you out also entails the slight comparison you made between Cleland and a "little boy." I thought the comparison to be classless, although it may have been unintentional. Even if it wasn't, you seemed to diminish the effect of Cleland's display based on the fact that he had to use a wheelchair which obviously diminishes his mobility and stature as compared to many others. That is wrong and deserves moral condemnation here and now. Such attacks are beyond politics, and you know better. It seems to me, however, that you have called folks retarded on this board for reasons other than personal disability. That hurts and it is wrong. If my memory is erroneous on that, apologies. If it isn't, shame then and shame now. There is more to my calling you out, which is that you made some statements that were admittedly dishonest. You made statements that attacked me personally (some of which were double-standards, if not dishonest), and I will not let those go unanswered. As for even-handedness, I look at the facts, and I argue on the basis of how I view the facts. Maybe the arguments that I make aren't "fair and balanced," but it all depends on how you view politics I guess. I'm not in favor of an outlook that is based on a "liberal"/"conservative" scale. On the issue of even-handedness, I clearly tip the scale to the left on such an outlook. However, I am one who favors balanced budgets, where does that fit in? It was conservative, but is that now a "liberal" stance. I don't support every tax cut that Bush criticizes Kerry for opposing. Does that make me a liberal? My preference would be to debate everything on the merits without the labels because neither label fits either you or I. To one degree or another, we are each "cafeteria" partisans in the sense that we have gone a la carte shopping and have bought into certain positions and have left others in the fridge. If you want to debate how and why I like McCain, start a thread, and I'd be happy to explain.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 25, 2004 20:39:53 GMT -5
Historically speaking, mudslinging has been a part of American politics for as many as 200 years. Doesn't make it right of course, but it is not a recent phenomenon: --Thomas Jefferson was accused of being an atheist who would outlaw religion if elected. --John Quincy Adams was called a pimp by Andrew Jackson's supporters, while Jackson was assailed by his foes as a bigamist and the son of a black man. --James Fremont, the challenger to James Buchanan, was accused of being an illegitimate child and being secretly Catholic. (He was neither.) --Abraham Lincoln's wife was accused of being a Confederate spy. --Rutherford Hayes was accused of stealing from funds set up for widows of Union soldiers. --Opponents of Grover Cleveland, accused of fathering a child out of wedlock, heckled him in the press (and at campaign stops) with the chorus of, "Ma, ma, where's my pa?" --Republicans proclaimed in 1928 that if Al Smith were elected, all Protestant marriages would be voided and the White House would pledge allegiance to Rome. --In 1948, Harry Truman said a vote for Dewey was a vote for fascism. By comparison, the Swift Boats isn't in the same league as some of these past outrages. The historical comment that I made was in reference to the McCain-Black Baby attack that Bush surrogates made, not the Swifties. If I was unclear, apologies. I think the McCain-Black Baby story holds up against the examples you cite. As for the Swifties, admittedly, it doesn't. However, that does not make it any less wrong in my view. I believe their argument to be morally wrong, and there are no shades of gray on that in my book.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Aug 26, 2004 8:59:46 GMT -5
If you have to announce that your conclusion is clear, it isn't. Which would explain why a Bush-Cheney campaign lawyer resigned after it was revealed he was concurrently advising both the campaign and the SBVT group. Heck, that's better proof of a cooperative arrangement than that of the "contacts" between Al-Qaeda & Saddam that the Administration used in its post-hoc justifications for Iraq. The DNC does have similar active ties to Moveon.org, but the DNC & RNC aren't Kerry-Edwards2004 or Bush-Cheney2004 under my admittedly tenuous grasp of election law, which I understand to forbid coordination b/t a 527 group and a campaign. Could be that the Bushies went a bit too far in trying to outdo the DU-types in the 527 game.
|
|
|
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Aug 26, 2004 10:57:57 GMT -5
Max Cleland has every right to do what he did and has every right to be upset because of the slanderous charges made against his friend John Kerry, to whom Max gave his family Bible at the beginning of the campaign.
He does. He also looked inane. He's not any more of a veteran than anybody else, regardless of his personal sacrifice. Service is service, but he is willing to objectify his. I agree with McCain's sentiment that it's not worthwhile to refight Vietnam.
The problem is that the media's overplay of the subject
Bingo. Our current media culturally encourages inanity and discourages debate. Although reading 9 paragraphs of things I disagree with is hard, I read them. I appreciate Jersey taking the time to write them, although everyone benefits from editing, which Internet message boards inherently discourage. Especially, this one. If I try to delete something, I invariably end up losing my post. Sigh.
Unfortunately, you seem to have forgotten that Kerry told them to take it down, which they did.
C'mon. Kerry and Clark reveled in letting Moore be their attack dog when he made his deserter comment. Kerry even said that line about "the issue, as i understand it, is did he or did he not show up for duty in alabama, and, as i understand it, these documents, recently released, do lead one to conclude to one view or another." kerryism, but read between the lines.
Attacking one's service is a deplorable act.
I disagree. Service is fair game. I've posted on this before. It is especially applicable for this campaign, in which Kerry made service a central theme of his convention. It is up to the voters to decide if they want to believe the claims or not. It says a lot about a person how they handle themselves. For example, Gore was perpetually making little lies to make himself come off better. Individually, none were the biggest deal, but systemically they showed that Al Gore was shady...or shadowy, as current lexicon would have it.
What is his plan for the next four years? Permanent tax cuts, social security investment accounts, health savings accounts and association health plans, winning the war on terror, incentives for ownership, the fleshing out of nclb, free trade, nationwide expansion of broadband.
His commentaries about flip-flopping suggest a lack of understanding of the legislative process on Bush's part. Every issue or bill has its companion on the other side of the aise. On the 87 billion for emergency supplements, there were 2 bills. Both called for troop funding of approximately the same amount. They differed, however, on sources of funding. Kerry voted for the Dem bill before he voted against the Repub bill. There is no inconsistency on the matter other than to note that Kerry opposed the $20 billion slush fund for Halliburton in the Repub bill
Wrong. Kerry wanted to force the President to repeal the tax cuts to pay the $87. That's playing politics with supporting our troops.
Anyway, that sort of elaborate discussion can't take place
I hope this was elaborate.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Aug 26, 2004 11:03:12 GMT -5
As opposed to using US troops and the nation of Iraq as a vehicle for your geopolitical theories. Or playing politics with whether you support the decision to authorize such activity.
|
|
|
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Aug 26, 2004 11:35:47 GMT -5
As opposed to using US troops and the nation of Iraq as a vehicle for your geopolitical theories. Or playing politics with whether you support the decision to authorize such activity. As for the second point, it is a fact that intelligence was not manipulated for political gain. A faulty intelligence service is not playing politics. As for the first point, I think our country has been using troops in support of geopolitics since the War of 1812, to the Spanish American War, certainly Wilson in World War I, we were provoked in WWII, but if it weren't for geopolitics, we would not have expanded to the European theater, then there was containment, the cold war, and in the last 15 years, a commitment to freedom. You should really think before you quip. I think even Jersey would agree with that.
|
|
Z
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 409
|
Post by Z on Aug 26, 2004 11:49:58 GMT -5
thebin, to your original point, it seems like bush, the one with the very messy war, crappy economy, and 39% approval rating on his hands, would be the one with the most to gain by having the focus remain on the swiftvets for as long as possible.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 26, 2004 11:56:25 GMT -5
Max Cleland has every right to do what he did and has every right to be upset because of the slanderous charges made against his friend John Kerry, to whom Max gave his family Bible at the beginning of the campaign. He does. He also looked inane. He's not any more of a veteran than anybody else, regardless of his personal sacrifice. Service is service, but he is willing to objectify his. I agree with McCain's sentiment that it's not worthwhile to refight Vietnam. The problem is that the media's overplay of the subject Bingo. Our current media culturally encourages inanity and discourages debate. Although reading 9 paragraphs of things I disagree with is hard, I read them. I appreciate Jersey taking the time to write them, although everyone benefits from editing, which Internet message boards inherently discourage. Especially, this one. If I try to delete something, I invariably end up losing my post. Sigh. Unfortunately, you seem to have forgotten that Kerry told them to take it down, which they did. C'mon. Kerry and Clark reveled in letting Moore be their attack dog when he made his deserter comment. Kerry even said that line about "the issue, as i understand it, is did he or did he not show up for duty in alabama, and, as i understand it, these documents, recently released, do lead one to conclude to one view or another." kerryism, but read between the lines. Attacking one's service is a deplorable act. I disagree. Service is fair game. I've posted on this before. It is especially applicable for this campaign, in which Kerry made service a central theme of his convention. It is up to the voters to decide if they want to believe the claims or not. It says a lot about a person how they handle themselves. For example, Gore was perpetually making little lies to make himself come off better. Individually, none were the biggest deal, but systemically they showed that Al Gore was shady...or shadowy, as current lexicon would have it. What is his plan for the next four years? Permanent tax cuts, social security investment accounts, health savings accounts and association health plans, winning the war on tecord, incentives for ownership, the fleshing out of nclb, free trade, nationwide expansion of broadband. His commentaries about flip-flopping suggest a lack of understanding of the legislative process on Bush's part. Every issue or bill has its companion on the other side of the aise. On the 87 billion for emergency supplements, there were 2 bills. Both called for troop funding of approximately the same amount. They differed, however, on sources of funding. Kerry voted for the Dem bill before he voted against the Repub bill. There is no inconsistency on the matter other than to note that Kerry opposed the $20 billion slush fund for Halliburton in the Repub bill Wrong. Kerry wanted to force the President to repeal the tax cuts to pay the $87. That's playing politics with supporting our troops. Anyway, that sort of elaborate discussion can't take place I hope this was elaborate. As for editing posts, you can, although it is not always a clean process. There should be a modify button that you can press to make changes. As for attacking service, you make a good point in the alleged objectification made by Kerry et al. However, the SVBFT go beyond this and use their attacks on service as a disguise for some rather controversial political attacks. It is a much more complex topic than a message board discussion allows. As for Bush's 4 year plan, I am not convinced that he'll make the things that you mention an issue, with the exception being the terror issue. His campaign is saying that he'll reveal his plan, which seems to indicate that we'll hear something that we haven't heard before. As for the $87 billion, I think your argument talks past mine. I said that the flip-flop characterization demonstrates a lack of understanding of the legislative process. Your response is that Kerry played politics. This may be a fair point and worthy for debate on its own, but it doesn't refute my point that the flip-flop attack shows a lack of understanding of the legislative process. When I have time, I may see if Kerry made a floor statement on the subject because he may have discussed things other than the issue of blank check/tax cut rollback. I believe, and he may believe, that the bill was a bad bill in the sense that there was needless pork ($20 billion slush fund for Halliburton et al.). In hindsight, I think a good argument can be made that it was a bad bill considering that roughly 5% of the appropriations have actually been spent at this time. Not bad for emergency appropriations... Anyway, I won't get ahead of myself here... Stay tuned for more on the Kerry argument... Thanks for your honest post and for keeping the discussion going.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 26, 2004 12:08:24 GMT -5
As for the second point, it is a fact that intelligence was not manipulated for political gain. A faulty intelligence service is not playing politics. As for the first point, I think our country has been using troops in support of geopolitics since the War of 1812, to the Spanish American War, certainly Wilson in World War I, we were provoked in WWII, but if it weren't for geopolitics, we would not have expanded to the European theater, then there was containment, the cold war, and in the last 15 years, a commitment to freedom. You should really think before you quip. I think even Jersey would agree with that. I take issue with the first sentence of the post. I read Woodward's book, and it is fairly evident that intelligence was skewed to take the nation to war. Bush originally doubted the intel, but Tenet said it was a slam dunk, and it was full steam ahead. Rumsfeld is on record saying he knew where the WMD were. Mentioning Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence for weeks on end was intentional and skewed the public understanding of intelligence. See recent polls re: Iraq-9/11 link. I think it is fairly clear that intel was skewed on this basis to some degree. It may also be worthwhile to look into the role of Doug Feith et al. in the Pentagon and their ad hoc intel service for more on the politicization of intelligence. There is a degree to which Chalabi et al. in his political organization were the relied upon sources for the intelligence. (It would also be worthwhile to examine the nexus among Chalabi, Cheney, and others in Bush Admin.). So, I would suggest that the Bush Admin. put the garbage in and got the garbage out as far as the intel is concerned. I should note that the CIA is a convenient fall guy because of lack of accountability. Colin Powell has admitted to scouring through the intel and picking that which proved his point best for his UN testimony. It suggests that the process eminated from a pre-conceived conclusion, and the evidence was picked to justify the war based on the agreed-upon conclusion. As for the entire argument, it may be true that intel manipulation has happened before. Does that make it morally and politically right? Slavery was a timeless practice in this nation too...
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Aug 26, 2004 12:16:51 GMT -5
PGFC: declaring that "it is a fact that intelligence was not manipulated for political gain" does not make it so. Generally, I find the attribution of fault re: WMD to "faulty intelligence" to be wholly specious. Intelligence involves the raw data collected and its subsequent interpretation. While there is little traction to the accusation that the Administration deliberately deceived the nation with its case for war, I think there's still plenty of traction to the debate over whether the Administration cared to explore the uncertainty behind the assessments on which its case was built.
But the case for war wasn't what I was trying to capture in "playing politics with whether you support the decision to authorize such activity." The RNC used one's position for or against the authorization for war as a politicial tool during the mid-term elections, painting those that didn't support it as "unpatriotic" or a supporter of OBL (Cleland comes immediately to mind). That's what I mean by "playing politics" with the decision to send troops into harms way.
As for whether the US has "using troops in support of geopolitics since the War of 1812, to the Spanish American War, certainly Wilson in World War I," I have two thoughts.
First, I don't argue that Clausewitz was wrong in postulating that war is the extension of politics through other means, which is why I didn't argue something with more rhetorical force like "Bush played politics with soldiers' lives." On the other hand, simply shifting the baseline of the discussion to say that "geopolitics" is always the reason the US goes to war assumes the question. Geopolitics may be a condition precendent, but I'd argue has always been, in my opinion, direct threats to US citizens or armed aggression that is the necessary condition.
Second, I apparently failed to properly stress the "theories" part of "geopolitical theories." Yes, war = geopolitics, but the neocon Iraq Gambit is a frickin lark: "Hey, if we could knock over Saddam, it could allow us to rebase our troops from Saudi Arabia to Iraq. And it could allow for the rise of the first truly democratic Arab nation in the Middle East. And it could reduce our dependence on Saudi Arabia as an ally. Sounds cool, let's try it out." It's this hair-brained, 'the-world-is-my-personal-game-of-Risk' impetus for the war in Iraq (which no one seems to dispute) to which I was referring in my first statement.
|
|
|
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Aug 26, 2004 13:58:19 GMT -5
I think we agree to disagree here and am glad that this has become a substantive thread, IMO. The rub in this matter is the "direct threat," which also encompasses the question of prewar intelligence. I think war is justified by more than direct threat. If not, we would not have extended operations in WW2 to the European theater. I also put stock in the neocon lark, as you describe it. "Direct threat" can be defined in myriad ways. If Hussein did posses wmds, as we supposed, then I think we can all agree it would have constituted a direct threat. The fact that we have discovered that he was maintaining wmd capabilities in defiance of UN resolution, imo, constitutes a direct threat, or at least, a threat worthy of regime change. But I also understand why a portion of the American population is upset and/or confused. History will judge, as it did the Civil War and World War 2. I think it's hard to go wrong when you go to bat for freedom.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Aug 26, 2004 14:27:12 GMT -5
A consideration ably demonstrated by the narrow definition you apply in the context of WWII. Of course, when it's defined to include indirect or abstract threats, "direct" loses all meaning as a limiting adjective. I think "direct" contemplates someone taking up arms against our nation, and in the case of WWII, don't forget the Nazi's declared war on the US.
That being said, I agree that pre-emption should be a valid consideration for defending the nation. However, using pre-emption as a justification for military action means walking a fine line. Kennedy was acting pre-emptively during the Cuban Missile Crisis, although it arguably also constituted an immediate, and thus more "direct" threat. Likewise, Korea & VietNam are more squarely "geopolitical" (and arguably "preemptive" to some extent), there's no doubt about that, although arguably our intervention was also "defensive," as we were nominally "invited" to intervene (vs. "crashing" the war because we were simply in the mood).
Unfortunately, this Administration has ruined the doctrine of preemption for future use, particularly with the empty "but 9/11 changed everything" nonsense it offered in an attempt to explain why it went forward despite the fact that the case for doing so was so far from solid (my feeling: if 9/11 was a "wakeup-call" or changed your geopolitical calculus, you weren't worthy of securing this nation from danger in the first place). If Iraq was to be the test case for the neocon's new vision of pre-emption, how is any future Administration going to assuage its critics' concerns when it comes time to "preempt" the far more dangerous Iran or North Korea? Neither party is going to forget the lessons of this Administration's preemption blunder in Iraq, the The fact that we have discovered that he was maintaining wmd capabilities in defiance of UN resolution (which I don't believe IS actually a fact) notwithstanding.
At the end of the day, there's going to bat for freedom, and then there's going off half-cocked. We'll have to agree to disagree on as to which applies to this Administration's actions in Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Aug 26, 2004 15:09:19 GMT -5
Peruse the Butler report, released 7/14/04. It demonstrates that Iraq under Hussein:
a. Had the strategic intention of resuming the pursuit of prohibited weapons programmes, including if possible its nuclear weapons programme, when United Nations inspection regimes were relaxed and sanctions were eroded or lifted.
b. In support of that goal, was carrying out illicit research and development, and procurement, activities, to seek to sustain its indigenous capabilities.
c. Was developing ballistic missiles with a range longer than permitted under relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions … (Paragraph 474)
It also determined that the so-called 16 words from the SOTU speech pertaining to uranium and Africa were "well founded." All of this is lost to the media.
|
|