Swifties & 2008
Written by Carmine on April 23rd, 2006With the 2008 Political season kicking off already, and people speculating on this or that candidate, it made me reminisce about our resounding victory in 2004.
Just recently, I lamented to a friend that we would have no way of reusing such effective groups as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but it seems Kerry might just give us reason to rejoice, dust off the old commercials and watch those effective Swifties do their work.
So, while we may, as yet, have no true contender or heir-apparent, at least we have fine Vets ready to stand up and tell their side of things.
23
PM
This talk of the vets “standing up” just reminded me of the generals speaking out recently against Rummy… I think vets could go either way along the party lines.
24
PM
I know of very, very, extremely few vets of any generation or war that support the Democratic party. How could they, the Dems are against everything these veterans fought for.
25
AM
I’m confused: how, for example, are Dems against what WW2 vets fought for? And are Repubs really showing a great track record for making sure that our soldiers have the best equipment, fair benefits packages, etc? Or, for that matter, making sure that we have real & unbiased intelligence before launching into a very long term war?
25
AM
Becky, Becky, Becky. The intelligence matter has be hashed and re-hashed over and over again. Reports done by U.S. intelligence, and British intelligence, and Russian intelligence, conclude that while the pre-war intelligence may or may not have been faulty, the Bush administration had just cause to take the actions they did BASED ON THE INTELLIGENCE THEY SAW. This administration has been thoroughly exonerated in this regard. As far as the “best equipment” jab, soldiers have actually complained that having more body armor slows them down and thus puts them in greater danger. A lot of this is just left-wing doom-and-gloom that is brought up solely for the purpose of dragging down the Bush presidency for their own political gain. Bush has increased military spending; while our soldiers still don’t make enough, you must recall how Clinton cut the military budget over his 2 terms. Realistically we can’t, given our current budget, pay every single military man and woman the wage they deserve (we’re too busy dolling out entitlement programs and pork projects), yet Bush has done a lot more in this regard than his Democrat predecessor.
25
AM
I think it’s very controversial still as to whether or not the intelligence was good, and whether or not the administration knew it was good when they made the decision. It seems rather naive to conclude that despite the re-hashing, and the many generals coming forward, and the leaks, that somehow the administration was still in the right in its decision making process. Spending billions upon billions of dollars & sending many brave soldiers off to their deaths isn’t a decision to be taken lightly. I think we’re getting information now that Rummy hasn’t always made the best choices, and that this adminsitration HASN’T been listening to the military men and women enough. Many soldiers have stopped supporting this administration, or at least begun to question it (my prof. told me a rather chilling tale, way back before the 2004 election, of soldiers she knew through family friends that had done a complete 180 in their opinion on the administration. And no they weren’t Dems.) So I wouldn’t be surprised, really, if the military tide turns against some types of Republicans.
25
PM
There are thousands of retired generals. 6 have come out to attack Rumsfeld. The Bush administration released information about Joe Wilson and his wife to counter his lies about what he saw in Nigeria… information that a) the president has the right to de-classify, and b) was not sensitive information to begin with. You need to back up your statements more substantially, Becky. Of course this administration has been listening to military men and women enough, if it weren’t we would have already pulled out of Iraq. Bush is listening to the generals on the ground, not all the whiny liberals in Congress out for political gain.
I still can’t understand why people refuse to acknowledge the facts surrounding Iraq. 12 years, 17+ U.N. Resolutions, nonstop firing at Coalition planes patrolling no-fly zones, nonstop violent rhetoric from the madman at the helm of the country, and documented prior use of weapons of mass destruction against his own people. What the hell else do you want to hear?
25
PM
Do you honestly think Iraq as it stood was more of a threat than Iran or North Korea? Do you think the U.S. should attack any country or regime that is showing violence to its own citizens? If so, I wonder where you stand on the Darfur issue, China, etc. Does a country have a right to invade another, when that country has little or no real evidence that the other poses an immediate threat? And more importantly, shouldn’t an administration do its best NOT to skew the evidence in favor of war? When said war will cost taxpayers billions of dollars? Don’t you think there are moral issues at stake when many suggest we’re less safe from terrorism now than before we invaded Iraq? When we channel money into foreign wars rather than into making sure that Americans have good education, good healthcare, and a healthy environment? These aren’t clear cut questions, and I am surprised that Langley thinks all have been answered.
And 32% approval ratings don’t lie — do you honestly believe that the military & vets aren’t forming part of the majority of citizens that now disapprove of this administration? There have been so many scandals, and the fact that generals are coming out against the way this war has been run should clue us in that all is not well.
25
PM
We screwed up on North Korea. They already have the capabilities and nuclear technology that we invaded Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring. Yes, they will have to be dealt with, and they are a serious threat, but the purpose of this war was to prevent another country from also gaining access to the Nuclear Club.
I never claimed that we invaded Iraq due to its violence to its own citizens. I provided that factoid, along with the other important historical facts (which you seem to think are insignificant, after all what does 17 U.N. Resolutions, repeatedly broken, really mean anyway? Why even bother with the U.N.?), to show how Saddam Hussein was a documented threat in the realm of WMD’s. As I said before, reports have vindicated the Administration from any “skewing” intelligence in order to bolster the cause for war.
This war was 12 years in the making. Regime change in Iraq became official U.S. policy in 1998 under Clinton. Give. Me. A. Break. You can appease Saddam all you want, but I for one am glad that we have Bush at the helm, not an appeaser like yourself, for matters of foreign affairs [domestic is another story]. Less safe NOW than before we invaded Iraq? That’s right, because before Iraq we didn’t have a terrorist attack on American soil killing 3,000 citizens, but after the invasion we did. Oops, it’s actually the other way around. It’s not just a coincidence that there have been many deaths around the world due to terrorism, but not in the U.S, since Sept. 11.
You’ll have to expand more upon the “good education, good healthcare, and a healthy environment” part, because I am at a loss- last time I checked we already have billions of dollars for these very purposes, some of which are, I daresay, unConstitutional for the federal government to even be involved in (Dept. of Education, anyone?). [On a side note, show me where in the Constitution it says that every citizen has the right to free healthcare from the government. For the life of me I just can't find it.]
I love how all you do is throw out generalities and even invoke a “moral question” argument (aw, now isn’t that sweet) when the facts surrounding the situation are staring you in the face. I don’t care much for ratings - show me how that is significant to this argument. A lot more than Iraq is at play in these polls - an ever-expanding Imperial Federal Government, Bush’s refusal to do his job and protect the borders from illegal immigrants, and the horrifying out-of-control spending that this Congress and president have allowed to occur on their watch. But none of that really matters, because the government must have a “moral” obligation to provide everything for its citizens, right? Go to France where your ideas might find more agreement.
26
AM
I don’t think you can make a very good case for Iraq presenting an *immediate* and *clear* danger. And Langley, if you want to talk about throwing the UN out the window, how about Bush forging ahead to war without the UN backing it up? And actually Bush’s administration *did* skew information. What reports are you talking about, because all the news i’ve been seeing lately has been to the exact opposite purpose. Haven’t you heard the latest about the supposed bio-weapon vans that turned out to be anything but, and the administration likely knew about it while telling the American people it presented evidence that Iraq had been a threat? Also, the repeated insinuation that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, when we knew better, seems like pretty clear “skewing” to me. And that the supposed uranium deal with what, Nigeria, wasn’t good intelligence? Also, if our policy is to wage war on every country attempting to develop nuclear weapons (or making the shadow of an appearance of doing so) we’re going to have a heck of a time doing anything BUT war. Speaking of which, why aren’t we bombing Brazil? Haven’t they expressed interest in joining the Nuclear Club?
I’d also make a case for health care & education being concerns of any just & intelligent government. Langley: never said the government should provide everything. But defense is also supposed to be about the welfare of the citizens… You need someone to protect if you’re going to wage war in the people’s name. How can an administration wage said war supposedly for the people’s benefit, but ignore an approaching hurricane? Or ignore the real threat of climate change? [Speaking of which, I can't wait for Al Gore's film.]
And I’d tend to agree with the latest General protesting against this administration (we’re on the 8th, by the way). He said that he didn’t disagree with going to war with Iraq, but more with going to war at the moment that we did, and with the plan that we did. I would have liked to see more & better evidence of these WMD’s, and a better plan than the cocky assurances that we’d be able to “shock and awe” Iraq & we’d be out in 3 weeks. If you go back to some of those early news reports (particularly Fox), it’s downright scary how over optimistic and unrealistic those first plans were.
26
AM
Becky, pardon me for not responding but the argument has gone beyond our original statements, maybe in another thread we’ll talk.
26
AM
I was going to respond to your commments, until I reached this:
“Speaking of which, I can’t wait for Al Gore’s film.”
I don’t think I really have anything else I can say to you.
26
PM
Haha! Well I think it’ll be an interesting film — Gore’s already explicitly said he’s not running for president, and he’s actually a very intelligent person and passionate about environmental science. And even Bush is starting to wake up a little to the fact that the oil won’t last forever, and isn’t the best thing for the environment — while he was in CA he was visiting the manufacturers of those T Cell cars (I think that’s what they’re called…)
26
PM
Gore is a fool duped by environental “activists” who disguise their contempt for capitalistic economy under the shroud of “global warming.” Hey Becky, you know why the Earth is getting warmer right now? Because the Sun is getting hotter. Imagine that.
26
PM
I was going to write an essay on why global warming should be taken seriously across the political spectrum — w/ examples of dying polar bears, melting ice caps, severe weather, loss of snow on previously capped mountain peaks, the risk of displacing a hundred million people if we don’t do anything and the ocean does indeed raise by 20 ft, the fact that scientists by and large agree that global warming is real, and that it’s better to do what we can to reverse the trend (even if humans aren’t the only cause of climate change) — and then I realized that you must be joking.
Please tell me you don’t honestly think the “sun is getting hotter.” And you do realize that all the new technology that would help lessen our impact on the environment would be part of our capitalist system, right? Do you think they’re going to give T-Cell cars away to communes?
27
AM
I’m sorry. My faith in scientific facts of the life cycles of stars must be wrong. I apologize.
27
PM
this link should end all debate:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html
The graph shows that climate mirrors exactly the energy output of the sun, which fluctuates wildly (relatively speaking). This is from the Standford Solar Center, one of the most respected solar research institutes in the entire world.
Al Gore at the end of the day is just not a very intelligent man.
28
AM
Mike: That’s very interesting — I’m curious though, because being a Stanford woman these days, I picked up the Alum magazine a few months ago, and the cover article was on global warming. Didn’t mention this at all, if I remember correctly.
28
AM
Wow, a liberal university put an issue on the front cover of their alumni magazine. So did TIME. What significance does that lend to the debate? Al Gore also believes in global warming… and we all now how he’s turned out. Just because the liberal elites and those whom suckle at their teat want to hammer away at an issue does not guarantee it’s truth. This goes both ways; just because Speaker Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Frist want to investigate oil companies through the FTC for possible collussion doesn’t make it even a plausible possibility for anyone who understands basic economics. You’re going to have to do better than that.
28
AM
Well Becky that doesn’t surprise me, Stanford is not monolithic in its thought, so I am sure there are some in the Stanford community that don’t care about the above findings.
28
AM
First of all, Stanford is not the most liberal university you’ll ever find (hello, Hoover Institution? Bush’s destination last Friday?). And secondly, my surprise, Langley, was not that a publication covered the story, but that Stanford — the source of this research Mike pointed out — didn’t address the sun energy output theory.
And naturally, you’ll find many countervoices to this theory. Here’s a good example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm
So, not surprisingly when there’s a nearly global debate over an issue, there isn’t an easy answer. When scientists disagree, it seems almost ridiculous to debate it…