My politcal rant
I'm sure the people around me are getting tired of hearing me spout my political views, so I've decided to post it someplace no one will ever read it...here :)
Terrorism, 9/11, and Homeland Security
People credit George Bush with there being no terrorist attacks against the US since September 11th and thats true as long as you don't consider american citizens killed in terrorist attacks overseas which is a precarious stance at best. But if Bush is responsible for there being no attacks on the US since 9/11 does that mean that he is responsible for 9/11? Bush was in office since January 20th of that year before 9/11 but somehow he's not responsible for it at all, its not his fault its Clinton's fault. Bush is very critical of Clinton for not going after al-Qaeda after several attacks; the first world trade center attack in 1993, the attack on US embassies in east africa, and the death of american soldiers in the Somali peacekeeping operation. The one I'd like to focus on is the attack on the USS Cole, this attack occurred on October 12, 2000. Thats 3 short months before George Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001. Now Bush criticizes Clinton for not going after Al-Qaeda, but if Clinton decided not to go after them near the end of his term why didn't Bush go after Al-Qaeda when he was sworn into office? Bush seems to like putting responsibility on other rather than on himself and his cabinet members.
Bush's criticize of John Kerry and John Kerry's position
Bush has constantly characterized John Kerry as a "flip-flopper" besides this sounding like something that a 3 year old would say it has been none the less effective. The republicans have taken to this "flip-flopper" characterization with a zeal like no other. I understand that it is very important for a president to be perceived as strong not only by its citizenry but also by the world. I can also understand how people see John Kerry as a "flip-flopper" because sometimes he does not make himself clear enough. In my mind the worst instance of this is when Kerry said "I actually voted for it[the 87 billion dollars to be spent in the Iraq war]before i voted against it" and Kerry admits that he made a mistake in how he talked about it. The second worst instance is regarding the first one again when Kerry said that it would be irresponsible to vote against the 87 billion dollars, but in fact he did vote against it. Bush often refers to body armor for soldiers when he talks about this $87 billion allocation, but we must not forget that measures put forth to the senate are never that simple, did the measure John Kerry voted against simply say "$87 billion for body armor for our troops in Iraq." Of course not, I'll be honest that I, as most people havn't read the measure that Kerry voted against to see everything that the $87 billion was meant to be spent on. But we must always remember that the senate is about compromise, i would imagine that every measure put forth to the senate has some parts that not everyone agrees to, so the senators must also compromise, if the measure is mostly good with a few bad parts you vote for it, and vice versa. Kerry having spent 20 years in the Senate it would be amazingly easy to make Kerry look like a "flip-flopper" if you looked at all those votes. Of course I'm sure that George Bush's opinion on certain issues has changed in the last 20 years of his life, but its even easier when we can talk about senate votes on measures that are imperfect at best. To his credit George Bush has refrained from bringing up votes that Kerry made 15 or 20 years ago. I have acknowledged that the last two arguments are reasonable, if imperfect. But the third most cited thing Bush refers to that characterizes Kerry as a "flip-flopper" is that Kerry actually voted for the war. But did he? Its true that Kerry did vote for Iraq resolution, but was it a vote for war? George Bush himself in a speech in the Rose Garden did not characterize it as a vote "for war". here is a quote from that speech:
"None of us here today desire to see military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and never seeks war unless it is essential to security and to justice. America's leadership and willingness to use force, confirmed by the Congress, is the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict. Saddam must disarm, period. If, however, he chooses to do otherwise, if he persists in his defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable."
In fact the President of the US does not need the Senate's approval to goto war, he went to the Senate as a show of American solidarity.
Despite Bush's constant characterization of Kerry as a "flip-flopper" on the war Kerry's stance has remained very constant. His view is this and I only feel the need to state what is my interpretation of his stance because there seems to be great confusion over it. His stance is this:
+Saddam was a bad guy
+Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing
+Going to war in Afghanistan was right
+Going to Iraq should have only been considered as a last resort
Thats about it, now heres where the confusing part comes in. Kerry says that getting rid of Saddam was good so the effect of the war was right but how Bush went about it was wrong. Around about the time of the Iraq resolution Bush himself said that he would only goto war as a last resort. Kerry's view here is that Bush didn't goto war as a last resort.
Now I personally don't think that sounds very complicated. Where I think the complication comes in is when Kerry is asked if he's for the war. Well how would you answer that question if you had Kerry's view? A yes or no answer doesn't quite cut it, if you say "yes" then its assumed that you agree with the war in all respects including how Bush went about it. If you say no, its assumed that Saddam posed no threat. Its a simple question "Are you for the war in Iraq?" but the answer isn't simple because the situation isn't simple.
The Debates
The presidential and vice-presidential debates have become a farce. The debates used to be run by the League or Women Voters, this was until 1988 when the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship, this is an excerpt from the press release announcing the Leagues withdraw:
"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."
The debates are not run by the Commission on Presidential Debates which was created by the Democratic and Republican parties. The debates today are closer to glorified press conferences than real debates.
Despite the fact that the debates are are basically joint press conferences they do show some distinct differences between the candidates. For example, John Kerry's arguments are usually based on facts and statistics while George Bush's arguments are often emotionally based. These debates are a joke when a candidate doesn't want to answer a question they simply side step it and talk about a topic that may or may not be related to the question. The part of the debates that I find truly sickening is "the spin", that would be the media spin that the respective parties put on the debate. This would be things like the Democrats making a big deal of George Bush's facial expressions during the first presidential debate. Or the Republicans taking Kerry's statement about a "global test" completely out of context.
The Reinstatement of the Military Draft
The Democrats have hinted that Bush may intend to reinstate a military draft. Thats a complete falsehood, besides the fact that its not the president's decision to reinstate the draft, there was a proposition before congress to reinstate the draft but it was put forth by a Democrat. I watch C-SPAN as the vote was taking place. Only two congressmen voted for it and the other 300 odd congressmen were against it, 50 or so didn't vote. I do believe that the talk about the draft was a scare tactic by the Democrats, but thats not to say that it wasn't a good issue to have before the congress and the way it was so overwhelmingly defeated was very reassuring to me.
John Kerry's Vietnam Record
There have been vast criticisms of John Kerry's Vietnam record including the accusation that one of his purple hearts was not deserved because it came from a self-inflicted wound. Now an important clarification, self-inflicted wound does NOT mean that he's accused of shooting himself or intentionally injuring himself. Even the most conservative activists havn't made that outrageous claim. A self-inflicted wound could be something like shrapnel from the weapon the soldier is firing coming back at him and hitting him. Are we seriously considering going back 30 years and second guessing a medal giving to a soldier? The decision was made at the time he medal was awarded, 30 years later do we somehow have more information? No in fact i would argue that we have less. So Kerry may have earned only two purple hears instead of three, when the man he's running against didn't go to Vietnam during the war.
John Kerry's Senate Record
George Bush has distorted John Kerry's Senate voting record, for example in this latest debate he said John Kerry voted 200 time to raise taxes. Now i personally don't know if that figure is true but lets give the president the reason of the doubt, the problem with figures like that is it counts multiple votes on the same measure. So how many tax increases did Kerry really vote for, not counting repeat votes? I dunno, but I'm very curious. And 200 votes in 20 years, thats not that bad, its not good either, but its not that bad considering how many votes the Senate makes in a single year. The figures I'd be curious to see is how many times Kerry voted against tax increases. Lastly, a tax increase does not mean a tax increase across the board for everyone, it could mean a tax increase only for the wealthy or even tax increases for large corporations. It's all in the details.
As far as attacks on John Kerry and John Edward's senate attendance record Edwards does have a pretty crappy record, but thats not to say his votes weren't recorded, many were made by proxy. But how many days did George Bush spend on vacation during his term as president? Bush has taken, as of August 2003, 250 vacation days. Who knows how many days it'll be by the end of his term.
I could rant more but i'm getting tired of typing...to be continued..maybe :)
Terrorism, 9/11, and Homeland Security
People credit George Bush with there being no terrorist attacks against the US since September 11th and thats true as long as you don't consider american citizens killed in terrorist attacks overseas which is a precarious stance at best. But if Bush is responsible for there being no attacks on the US since 9/11 does that mean that he is responsible for 9/11? Bush was in office since January 20th of that year before 9/11 but somehow he's not responsible for it at all, its not his fault its Clinton's fault. Bush is very critical of Clinton for not going after al-Qaeda after several attacks; the first world trade center attack in 1993, the attack on US embassies in east africa, and the death of american soldiers in the Somali peacekeeping operation. The one I'd like to focus on is the attack on the USS Cole, this attack occurred on October 12, 2000. Thats 3 short months before George Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001. Now Bush criticizes Clinton for not going after Al-Qaeda, but if Clinton decided not to go after them near the end of his term why didn't Bush go after Al-Qaeda when he was sworn into office? Bush seems to like putting responsibility on other rather than on himself and his cabinet members.
Bush's criticize of John Kerry and John Kerry's position
Bush has constantly characterized John Kerry as a "flip-flopper" besides this sounding like something that a 3 year old would say it has been none the less effective. The republicans have taken to this "flip-flopper" characterization with a zeal like no other. I understand that it is very important for a president to be perceived as strong not only by its citizenry but also by the world. I can also understand how people see John Kerry as a "flip-flopper" because sometimes he does not make himself clear enough. In my mind the worst instance of this is when Kerry said "I actually voted for it[the 87 billion dollars to be spent in the Iraq war]before i voted against it" and Kerry admits that he made a mistake in how he talked about it. The second worst instance is regarding the first one again when Kerry said that it would be irresponsible to vote against the 87 billion dollars, but in fact he did vote against it. Bush often refers to body armor for soldiers when he talks about this $87 billion allocation, but we must not forget that measures put forth to the senate are never that simple, did the measure John Kerry voted against simply say "$87 billion for body armor for our troops in Iraq." Of course not, I'll be honest that I, as most people havn't read the measure that Kerry voted against to see everything that the $87 billion was meant to be spent on. But we must always remember that the senate is about compromise, i would imagine that every measure put forth to the senate has some parts that not everyone agrees to, so the senators must also compromise, if the measure is mostly good with a few bad parts you vote for it, and vice versa. Kerry having spent 20 years in the Senate it would be amazingly easy to make Kerry look like a "flip-flopper" if you looked at all those votes. Of course I'm sure that George Bush's opinion on certain issues has changed in the last 20 years of his life, but its even easier when we can talk about senate votes on measures that are imperfect at best. To his credit George Bush has refrained from bringing up votes that Kerry made 15 or 20 years ago. I have acknowledged that the last two arguments are reasonable, if imperfect. But the third most cited thing Bush refers to that characterizes Kerry as a "flip-flopper" is that Kerry actually voted for the war. But did he? Its true that Kerry did vote for Iraq resolution, but was it a vote for war? George Bush himself in a speech in the Rose Garden did not characterize it as a vote "for war". here is a quote from that speech:
"None of us here today desire to see military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and never seeks war unless it is essential to security and to justice. America's leadership and willingness to use force, confirmed by the Congress, is the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict. Saddam must disarm, period. If, however, he chooses to do otherwise, if he persists in his defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable."
In fact the President of the US does not need the Senate's approval to goto war, he went to the Senate as a show of American solidarity.
Despite Bush's constant characterization of Kerry as a "flip-flopper" on the war Kerry's stance has remained very constant. His view is this and I only feel the need to state what is my interpretation of his stance because there seems to be great confusion over it. His stance is this:
+Saddam was a bad guy
+Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing
+Going to war in Afghanistan was right
+Going to Iraq should have only been considered as a last resort
Thats about it, now heres where the confusing part comes in. Kerry says that getting rid of Saddam was good so the effect of the war was right but how Bush went about it was wrong. Around about the time of the Iraq resolution Bush himself said that he would only goto war as a last resort. Kerry's view here is that Bush didn't goto war as a last resort.
Now I personally don't think that sounds very complicated. Where I think the complication comes in is when Kerry is asked if he's for the war. Well how would you answer that question if you had Kerry's view? A yes or no answer doesn't quite cut it, if you say "yes" then its assumed that you agree with the war in all respects including how Bush went about it. If you say no, its assumed that Saddam posed no threat. Its a simple question "Are you for the war in Iraq?" but the answer isn't simple because the situation isn't simple.
The Debates
The presidential and vice-presidential debates have become a farce. The debates used to be run by the League or Women Voters, this was until 1988 when the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship, this is an excerpt from the press release announcing the Leagues withdraw:
"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."
The debates are not run by the Commission on Presidential Debates which was created by the Democratic and Republican parties. The debates today are closer to glorified press conferences than real debates.
Despite the fact that the debates are are basically joint press conferences they do show some distinct differences between the candidates. For example, John Kerry's arguments are usually based on facts and statistics while George Bush's arguments are often emotionally based. These debates are a joke when a candidate doesn't want to answer a question they simply side step it and talk about a topic that may or may not be related to the question. The part of the debates that I find truly sickening is "the spin", that would be the media spin that the respective parties put on the debate. This would be things like the Democrats making a big deal of George Bush's facial expressions during the first presidential debate. Or the Republicans taking Kerry's statement about a "global test" completely out of context.
The Reinstatement of the Military Draft
The Democrats have hinted that Bush may intend to reinstate a military draft. Thats a complete falsehood, besides the fact that its not the president's decision to reinstate the draft, there was a proposition before congress to reinstate the draft but it was put forth by a Democrat. I watch C-SPAN as the vote was taking place. Only two congressmen voted for it and the other 300 odd congressmen were against it, 50 or so didn't vote. I do believe that the talk about the draft was a scare tactic by the Democrats, but thats not to say that it wasn't a good issue to have before the congress and the way it was so overwhelmingly defeated was very reassuring to me.
John Kerry's Vietnam Record
There have been vast criticisms of John Kerry's Vietnam record including the accusation that one of his purple hearts was not deserved because it came from a self-inflicted wound. Now an important clarification, self-inflicted wound does NOT mean that he's accused of shooting himself or intentionally injuring himself. Even the most conservative activists havn't made that outrageous claim. A self-inflicted wound could be something like shrapnel from the weapon the soldier is firing coming back at him and hitting him. Are we seriously considering going back 30 years and second guessing a medal giving to a soldier? The decision was made at the time he medal was awarded, 30 years later do we somehow have more information? No in fact i would argue that we have less. So Kerry may have earned only two purple hears instead of three, when the man he's running against didn't go to Vietnam during the war.
John Kerry's Senate Record
George Bush has distorted John Kerry's Senate voting record, for example in this latest debate he said John Kerry voted 200 time to raise taxes. Now i personally don't know if that figure is true but lets give the president the reason of the doubt, the problem with figures like that is it counts multiple votes on the same measure. So how many tax increases did Kerry really vote for, not counting repeat votes? I dunno, but I'm very curious. And 200 votes in 20 years, thats not that bad, its not good either, but its not that bad considering how many votes the Senate makes in a single year. The figures I'd be curious to see is how many times Kerry voted against tax increases. Lastly, a tax increase does not mean a tax increase across the board for everyone, it could mean a tax increase only for the wealthy or even tax increases for large corporations. It's all in the details.
As far as attacks on John Kerry and John Edward's senate attendance record Edwards does have a pretty crappy record, but thats not to say his votes weren't recorded, many were made by proxy. But how many days did George Bush spend on vacation during his term as president? Bush has taken, as of August 2003, 250 vacation days. Who knows how many days it'll be by the end of his term.
I could rant more but i'm getting tired of typing...to be continued..maybe :)