So the time has come to take a stand. To make a decision. To step forward and own my decision about this election. And here it is:
Our choices suck. Can’t we get a do-over?
No? Well then, if I must make a decision based on what we have on the ballot (…picture Cleavon Little going “You must! You Must!”) here it is, and here are my reasons why.
I’ve voting for George Bush for President.
Yeah, some surprise, you say.Actually, my decision was a kind of a surprise to me when I realized that I’d made it. Bush, and the contemporary Republican Party trigger a kind of visceral reaction in me; the evangelical connection, the sweetheart corporate deals, the reliance – like Ronald Reagan – on pork to buy peace in the political class combined with fiscally irresponsible tax cuts (it’s not that tax cuts are themselves bad, it’s just that tax cuts combines with insane federal spending isn’t a good thing). The list goes on.
But as I sat down and read everything I could get my hands on about and by Bush and Kerry in the last few days, I tripped over something that made up my mind for me. It was from Kerry’s interview in “Rolling Stone,” and in it he says, as a part of a longer answer regarding Iraq and Vietnam:
“…that’s what I’m trying to offer America right now — a realistic way to get our troops home, with honor, by achieving our goals but by sharing the burden and risk.”
I’ve criticized the specifics of some of his foreign policy comments (re the Kerry speech at UCLA in February), but actually, I’m pretty flexible about specifics. This is a dynamic, iterative process, and whoever is in change is going to learn and change what they do. But there is one thing that I’m not going to be too flexible about, and that is commitment.
Much of my decision making and thinking comes from what are – to me, at least – illuminating parallels between the decision before me and things I know and have seen in my own life. This is no exception.
Last month I had lunch with a dear friend from grad school; he’s a monstrously successful real estate developer and a staunch and senior Kerry supporter here in California. We argued about the election, and the war. He understands the war, but isn’t convinced that Bush is smart enough to pull it off.
“I don’t think that matters as much as you do,” I told him. “I’m probably smarter than you are – in terms of IQ tests and grades in school. You’re a multimillionaire, and I’m not – even though I’ve been in businesses parallel to you for as long as you. Why do you think that is?”
“Because I’m more determined than you are,” he replied.
“Exactly,” I responded.
Success in any enterprise is only partly determined by skill and intelligence. Luck plays a large part. But the largest role, I believe, is played by commitment and determination to reach a goal. My friend wanted to be successful more than I did. He was.
Kerry’s goals, as he consistently expresses them, are defensive in nature. His quote above isn’t about winning, but about bringing the troops home. I genuinely believe that was put first because that’s his priority, when you get down to it.
And it isn’t mine. We are at war, and we need to win this war, or it will be the start of a series of bloody conflicts that will end, I believe, in a holocaust.
We will survive the conflicts, and we will survive the holocaust. But we will be changed by them, and not for the better. I believe that we will be ruined by them, economically, morally, and spiritually.
When I weigh the damage that Bush is likely to do – to gays, to the environment, to the nation’s balance sheet – against the odds and outcome of this worst case, the risks fall on the side of choosing Kerry.
Beyond this, there are four broad topics I want to write about as I explain why I think Bush should be re-elected:
1. Iraq and the War on Islamist Terrorism
3. The Future of the Democratic Party
4. Finding A New Way
This is long enough. I’ll break them up, and I’ll put one of them up each day, starting tomorrow, and we’ll wrap up next week.
UPDATE: Kevin Drum and his readers reply. And from AL: Can I gently suggest to Kevin’s readers that you read the other two related posts before commenting? You may not agree with me any more, but at least you’ll know a bit more about what you’re disagreeing with.
I’ll need to see full discussion on each of those four points to see what your reasoning is. I would be curious, however, if you can also talk point #3 as regards the future of the GOP.
I say that because, as a Californian, you may have some idea where the GOP is headed since California does sometimes show future trends, and the California GOP is a good signpost.
Anyway, you’re going to need four threads, aren’t you?
Bob, you’re right I should – but I really can’t get excited about the future of the GOP. Let someone who self-identifies as a Republican do that…sorry. I might be able to do it analytically, but I want to talk more emotionally about the D’s.
A.L.
I only mention that because (1) if the California model is where it’s headed, it isn’t pretty, (2) there’s been some talk in the GOP — usually picked up on Sullivan’s blog — about getting rid of the moderates (“RINOs”) and a Nov. victory will not deflect it, and (3) it’s an argument in my own mind as to how to vote. The party, not the man.
The Marin County GOP has already gone the way of the state GOP, and wore out its welcome real fast. We’ve gone in 15 years from being a progressive Republican district to a heavily Democratic one because of the local GOP’s antics, which led a statewide trend.
If these two candidates are the choice, then the party is a very real issue.
Especially as your vote in California, like mine, matters for very little in the electoral college. Vote for Bush in California? What diff? I’m even more curious how you’re voting further down the ticket.
Especially on the Propositions, where your vote will mean something.
I’m glad you’ve finally taken a stand. I love Drezner, but I do get the suspicion that he made up his mind a long time ago (perhaps around the time of Abu Ghraib) and the whole p-value thing is a bit of an act. Maybe Sullivan, too, but I don’t read him.
In your case, I get the impression that you had an idea where you’d probably end up, but were willing to withhold final judgment until you fully considered the case for and against both sides.
Well I’m voting for Bush too, in that case.
And I hope you will join me and other Republicans in trying to keep as many Democrats home as possible on election day.
You want Florida or Ohio?
One other question I have is to the direction you’ll be taking. I found this — “but I want to talk more emotionally about the D’s.” — to suggest something more than John Kerry.
So, is this simply your decision about the top of the ticket? Or something more fundamental? It will be worth thinking of this now before the discussion gets underway.
SHAME ON YOU. For the sake of the world I hope you get slammed by a truck on the way to the polls.
VT,
C’mon. While anyone who is paying attention knew how AL would vote, why such a sarcastic entry on “keeping people away” from the polls? Yes, this is happening, yes, it is horrible, but what does this have to do with AL’s post?
It’s a vile type of comment. You can do better, and have done better in the past.
AL,
Jesus.
“We are at war, and we need to win this war, or it will be the start of a series of bloody conflicts that will end, I believe, in a holocaust.”
Could you be any more pessimistic? Do you in any way understand that pre-emption such as what happened in Iraq makes the “holocaust” more likely??
Oh, and let’s ignore the 90-98% of Islamists who, while resenting the U.S., in many ways admire the US, and who would die because of actions of a small group of Islamic totalist terrorists that WE MUST, CAN AND WILL DISCREDIT IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES! And that is WITH the people in those countries help.
And not by blowing them away. You really think any country has a death wish?
Not to mention exhausting US military resources, which could mean in 20-30 years ensures China as pre-eminent power in the world.
Oh, and the “Nutz” comment should probably be deleted, or Nutz should back off in some fashion. Can’t even tell what is being addressed, although it is probably VT.
Here is a letter that needs to be much more widely distributed. It was orginally posted on Andrew Sullivans site. I found it on Ace of Spades which is down now.
It is an old military maxim that blunders can be forgiven, but a lack of boldness cannot. There will always be blunders. The simple becomes difficult in war. Take for example the following question: what is 2+2 equal too? An easy question right? Now imagine I gave you 15 such questions and you had 2 seconds to answer them. Most likely you would answer some and leave the rest. Looking at those questions you missed in isolation I might say, “What kind of blathering idiot are you? You can’t even answer simple questions like 2+2=4”. That is why Armchair Generals are so annoying. They look at one thing in isolation with all the time in the world to think about it and say confidently “the answers obvious”. But when you are out in the fight everything looks different. Nothing is ever seen in isolation. You never have enough time. You never know more than 1/10 what you need to know. There will always be blunders.
But the job has to get done anyway. And to get this kind of job done boldness is essential. A leader who never blunders, but who doesn’t take the fight to the enemy is worthless. A leader who sets about to win – win ugly if needs be – is priceless.
One thing the Marine Corps taught me is that a 70% solution acted on immediately and violently is better than a perfect solution acted on later. My experience has proven this true time and again. The sad fact is however, that a 70% solution is a 30% mistake. And those mistakes can be hard to take. In WWII for example, 700 soldiers drowned in a training accident in preparation for D-Day (that is about how many combat deaths we’ve experienced so far in Iraq).
There is a scene in the movie “We were Soldiers” that says it better than I can. In the scene a young soldier on the ground is giving directions on enemy positions to aircraft flying overhead. The aircraft then dropped Napalm on the enemy. At one point the soldier gets the directions wrong and stares horrified as the Napalm is dropped on his own unit. The soldier is shaken beyond belief. He sat there doing nothing – paralyzed by his mistake. Then his Commanding Officer gave him the confidence to carry on. The CO told him to “forget about that last one” and “you’re keeping us alive here”. And so the soldier swallowed his guilt and kept doing his job and thereby saved the unit. That is what a 70% solution looks like in real life. And those are the 70% solutions that win wars.
Most people and events are beyond your control. Most questions you don’t have time to answer. Most facts you will never know. But you have to press the attack anyway. No matter how ugly it gets, you keep going until you win.
Kerry doesn’t understand that. Everything he did during the Cold War and everything he says about this one states as much. He represents those who would never blunder, but who would not take the fight to the enemy. He would just sit there – like the soldier in the movie – paralyzed by America’s mistakes.”
That might make some sense if the war had been prudent in the first place. Everything I read, though, suggests a policy machine willing to hear only what it wanted to hear, irresponsibly silencing dissent within its own ranks, selectively picking and choosing intelligence.
I fail to see how we are any safer post-Iraq. To me, it is a blunder. Plain and simple. We’ve enraged much of the Arab world that wasn’t already enraged. We’ve given terrorist recruiters unbelievable material to win over disillusioned Muslim youths. We’ve engaged thousands of troops in a conflict with no clear end, strategy, or even goal.
Foolish, stubborn persistance is not honorable determination.
JC, let’s see what A.L.’s reasons are. Part of the problem with elections is that people think they have to fall in love with a candidate or they can’t vote for him — not realizing, of course, you’re just supposed to vote for him, not _marry_ him. (They’re politicians, which means if they don’t work out you can discard him/her when re-election time comes up, which is another reason to vote for John Kerry. The Republic has survived 43 of them so far).
If, however, A.L. is put off by the Party in general, then that’s another issue entirely. “The future of the Democratic Party” as a criterion of his suggests something. It doesn’t justify, however, voting for more of the kind of Congressmen, social conservatives, Cabinet officers or judicial appointments that George W. has brought to power, so I’m curious just what A.L. means by this, or if it’s thought through. (Metaphor: being annoyed at your spouse — or maybe just the décor — doesn’t justify burning your house down.)
Oh, and VT and Nutz, you might ask your doctor if a splenectomy is right for you.
To Pierre LaGrand, if that training incident prior to D-Day you mention is the one at Slapton Sands, the reason those GIs died is because a couple of German E-boats got into the invasion rehearsal. Sank a couple of LSTs, if I’m not mistaken.
No accident.
Vesicle Trafficker said “And I hope you will join me and other Republicans in trying to keep as many Democrats home as possible on election day.”
Even Democrats like me who are going to vote for Bush? How childish. Was the sarcasm tag missing at the end of that sentence?
“…although it is probably VT.”
I don’t need to hind behind an alias here, JC. I would never say something like that. Yes, I think A.L. is a fool, but I don’t wish any harm on him or anyone. Hey, we’re both riders.
Get a grip, fer chrissake. I was trying to be sarcastic.
VT,
Actually, I must have typed that wrong. I wasn’t sure who Nutz’s comment was referring TO. I meant to guess that NUTZ’s commnet was referring to YOUR comment – but it is also possible that Nutz’s comment could be referring to AL’s post.
I hate cleaning up over confusing comments. My apologies.
I got the heavy sarcasm – you could have made your point in a much better way though.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!;)
I am somewhat bemused that your reason for choosing Bush seems to be concerns that Kerry will “cut and run” and settle for something less than success in Iraq in favor of bringing the troops home quickly, because I am quite sure Kerry won’t do that. Hopefully, Kerry will win and you’ll be pleasantly surprised.
Off-topic but two interesting articles I haven’t seen linked in Winds of Change before:
a somewhat fawning but good Time article on Sistani.
a Pakistani analysis of Iran
OK, JC, it does seem as if you were saying the kook was directing his comment at mine, although why you should think this is kinda weird given that it ain’t my thread.
I got the heavy sarcasm – you could have made your point in a much better way though.
That depends on what you think my point was, JC.
AL, I look forward to you discussion on the future of the D party.
L
For me the choice is simple. By their friends shall ye know them. Democrats: Clintons, Carter, Big Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin,….. the list goes on interminably.
Then there are the recent Democratic tactics to skew the voters.
Are those of you Kerry supporters really able to say with a straight face that these are people you trust with the country? Are these people you count as brothers?
For me, they are not, and that’s enough reason not to give them any more power.
Well, it’s very reassuring that roublen is “quite sure” Kerry won’t cut and run and that he hopes we will be “pleasantly surprised” by a Kerry victory. Of course, I haven’t the foggiest notion who roublen is or why I ought to be guided by his/her wishful thinking when choosing which candidate to vote for. Kerry keeps saying his main concern is to bring our boys home as soon as he thinks it’s practical, which sounds pretty much like a promise to cut and run. I’ll take Kerry’s statements at face value, unless anyone can show me good reasons why I shouldn’t.
What a surprise. Yawn.
Will you be changing your tag to “Armed Reactionary” now? Less cute, but much more thematically consistent.
Bob Harmon,
Yes, I suppose we will see. Based on previous posts of AL, I believe it will revolve a bit about how the Democratic party is becoming a party of the “skybox liberals”, and he wants to see it create policy that engages the working class more.
Which is nice, and great if he can think of a politically palatable way to make this work. But it suffers from:
1. Ignoring that people like Tom Delay are those who are running the Republican party. And even if the “analysis” of “skybox liberals” was accurate – and I think it isn’t – a skybox liberal is better than Tom Delay and his ilk.
2. Has the tendency to SOUND like a version of “Hollywood liberal”, and always makes me wonder if he is just perpetuating stereotypes that somehow – hmmm – always seem to be similar to breathless Republican charges of “liberal liberal liberal!”.
We’ll see. The briefings are becoming of more value to me, as AL’s policy positions and point of view (however much I like his writing voice, and especially a lot of his slice of life stuff) is becoming impossibly muddled with internal contradictions.
Of course we all saw this coming a long way off, but at least now we have it in writing. If it’s any consolation I agonized over this myself before finally Xing my absentee vote for Bush yesterday. Two years ago I never thought I’d ever do such a thing, but the bottom line is that I see a Kerry presidency as probably being Clintonesque, and I don’t think that’s what we need right now. Now I just pray I don’t come to regret my vote for Bush.
I have followed all A.L.’s deliberating, and I think he’s done a good job. Some of you guys act like it is a betrayal of some kind.
I have friends who have always been single issue voters on abortion rights, and are reluctantly voting for Bush. I think the WoT has to be everyone’s single issue now.
I am a Canadian so I am not a US voter. Whilst I agree with some of the logic on why Bush is the better choice for the times of today, I cannot overlook his lopsided tax cuts, increased federal spending, his continued backing of his Vice-President, his double speak on the environment and corporate welfare.
It is all too much for me and as such if I was a voter, I would vote Kerry. I would not be happy about it but I would vote for Kerry as there just too many X’s against Bush in my opinion. Bush just does not care about too many people for him to continue to be the President
To jinnderella, I’m not sure it’s a betrayal, and I’m interested in anybody who supports Bush who doesn’t act like “support” has to mean “tout uncritically.” We’ll see in his next 4 threads how A.L. has come to this. Certainly, after watching Andrew Sullivan twist himself in knots (he wants to be Republican, he wants to support Bush, but he can’t seem to bring himself to stay with him) it’ll be interesting to see how A.L. is reasoning or if he’s simply put off by something.
To Mike, this is kind of a talk-show argument, which I’ll take seriously if I think that “Clintons, Carter, Big Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin” will be named to the Kerry cabinet or are permitted to have any real say in DNC matters. Other than Bill and Hillary I’m not sure any of them have any value other than as entertainers. It’s not like a cabinet that includes the likes of John Ashcroft. Save the boogeyman argument for Oct. 31.
JC, I’ve been to enough California state Party conventions that I’m convinced that the skybox and Hollywood liberals are valued only for their checkbooks. The CDP, at least, is about being in power to the exclusion of all else (the most notorious example being Gray Davis) and if A.L. is put off by our platform and resolutions it’s worth remembering that no one reads them except the ones that wrote them. So those who say the Democratic Party has policies that will (fill in the blank) don’t know or don’t care that it’s all kitty litter, that the Party will run things as the situation dictates. (That is to say, as FDR dealt with matters, and that means that events drive government, not last year’s platform).
So if A.L.’s argument is that Kerry will leave us vulnerable to the enemy, I can’t help but remember when the GOP said that Harry Truman and George C. Marshall were traitors. It ain’t so, then or now.
Oh, and here’s a quote that’s one of my favorites, that is very much on point in a Presidential year. A quote for A.L. and all of us to ponder. A quote about the first (1856) GOP presidential nominee, John C. Frémont:
“Neither misuse of Senatorial power in the pursuit of advertising, nor the creation in newsprint of a great public hero, is an invention of our age, which has not seen any betterment of the technique that erected [John C.] Frémont into a martyr … a figure of oratory and newsprint. That creation was almost enough to wreck the republic. It was enough to convince innumerable people born since the advertising stopped and its proprietors died, so that you will find it in the instruction given our children … that incompetence is courage, that self-seeking mutiny is statesmanship, that youth and purity of intention — if purity exists in the main chance — qualify a stupid man to lead armies and govern a nation, that martyrdom in headlines erases blunders and nullifies treason, that greatness is a loud noise.”
—Bernard DeVoto, The Year of Decision: 1846 (published 1943)
And, yes, it applies across the board.
A.L., I applaud that you are providing a rationale for your vote. Should it ever become necessary to examine your logic later, at least it will be out there in the daylight. Your willingness to offer something more than smug sanctimony is commendable.
I am voting for Kerry because he is not the most liberal man in the Senate. He is someone who can lead from the middle and appeal to the reasonable from both sides on the most vital issues.
The political apartheid in America must end, just as the war must end. The GOP cannot bring either about in my opinion. Wars are an empty enterprise. Frankly, I am uneasy being in the protective custody of the Bush administration simply because that is where we all were when we were attacked. It is like not firing the railroad switchman who let two trains collide because you’re certain he “won’t let that sort of thing happen again.”
The future of the Democratic party is in the hands of many of the people voting for their first time in this election. The future of the Democratic party is in the hands of citizens independently monitoring the polling places. The future of the Democratic party is in the hands of the Michael Moores, Alec Baldwins, the Jimmy Carters – private citizens who participate in the process and try to enjoy themselves while doing it. None of those guys have an official capacity or cast votes. They are in the mix because they want to be a part of democracy. I do too, that is why I am voting Democratic this year.
BTW, great quote, Bob.
bq. SHAME ON YOU. For the sake of the world I hope you get slammed by a truck on the way to the polls.
Wha…? I guess Armed Liberal’s vote will decide the election. Congratulations, mate.
obelus:
bq. Wars are an empty enterprise. Frankly, I am uneasy being in the protective custody of the Bush administration simply because that is where we all were when we were attacked. It is like not firing the railroad switchman who let two trains collide because you’re certain he “won’t let that sort of thing happen again.”
Wow.
Good job, AL. Hope you can lead on Constructive Criticism, how Bush should be doing better.
Iran is my elephant — what is the chance that Iran gets nukes in the next 4 years?
Kerry – 50%. Bush – 10%.
But actually, both are much less — since Israel will go to war to stop the mullahs.
Therefore … if you want Israel to attack Iran, vote for Kerry!
(I’m terrified of such a world. Go Bush.)
I remember my heart sinking about 2 years ago when I read a story that clearly indicated that Bush refused to discuss alternative views and would brook no criticism. If that story was true, and there was every reason to believe that it was, then we were in trouble.
I’m a lifelong conservative (a real one, paleo not neo) who has always supported the Republican nominee for President.
Not this time.
There are a number of reasons for this.
Essentially I believe that BOTH major political parties have been bought and paid for by multi-national corporate interests and their support for outsourcing, corporate abuse of temp visas, amnesty for illegal immigrants (cheap labor) and their refusal to fortify our borders (cheap labor) at the expense of the American middle class bolster this view.
On Iraq; I’m a retired career NCO. I served and fought in Vietnam with the 3rd Marine Division and after a long break in service finished out my 20 in the Army Infantry and Cavalry. I taught tactics and strategy at the US Army Infantry School and was selected to be a tactical evaluator at the National Training Center Ft Erwin CA.
In a nutshell, I know our doctrine.
I also know that Rumsfeld violated that doctrine big time in his determination to prove technology as a force substitute as well as a force multiplier.
Shades of Bob McNamara, we, once again, had a civilian bean counter who knew better than the war fighters and anyone who disagreed with him, like Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki was humiliated and forced into retirement.
On top of that Rumsfeld forbade any of the top military brass to participate in after combat action planning, fearful that word would leak that this could be a lengthy and costly exercise.
What a fool.
What price hubris?
So we had folks like Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and a number of other airheads dismissing any criticism of the military planning. They, and their neo-con mouthpieces knew better than Gen’s Zinni or Shinseki. Yeah, right.
That fact that way too many units were without flank or rear security or that the 7th Cav, after 5 straight days of combat was immediately sent on another mission, or that light Marine units withstood weeks of close in ambushes from both sides…..none of that was important cause we had raced to Baghdad in record time. As if a tactical military operation was a bid to get into the Guiness book of records.
Many of our top war fighters, especially those with counter-insurgency experience had already retired. Many had retired in disgust during Clinton’s use of the military as the UN’s Welcome Wagon. Consequently the leadership was slow to react in securing the borders, consolidating areas, going after bad guys etc etc.
Rumsfeld’s failures, countenanced by Bush, have dramatically increased our casualties.
Then there is considerable evidence that Rumsfeld, now in a panic as his class project was falling apart, authorized the use of “special procedures” in prisoner interrogation. Normally the purview of highly trained Spec Ops types, Rumsfeld apparently felt it could be handled by reservists. The results were predictable and tremendously damaging to our efforts. But you can bet it won’t be Rumsfeld that goes to jail.
So now, as in Vietnam, my brothers and sisters, those I trained and lived and worked with are dying every day, for no reason at all. Who will be the last soldier to die there?
The damage being done to our military is mind boggling and the Marines and Army, as after Vietnam, will take decades to recover.
Doesn’t bother Bush though. He admits no mistakes, no second thoughts. And in fact the neocon cabal that captured this administration is even now talking up action against Iran.
Bush is a fool for going along with this, for refusing to admit mistakes and for refusing to clear the Pentagon of those who have cost us so much.
He has to go. I’m voting for a third party candidate. I think anything else is wasting a vote.
Your voting for “this man?”:http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/001595.html
Every time I see this I just burst out in laughter.
But without sarcasm, VT would entirely disappear.
-pw
Congradulations on your choice, though I guess that nixes any possibility of contributing to a Kerry Administration.
But your decision isn’t exactly what I want to comment on, but the Kerry quote in your post. First his “secret plan” to win the war and now “peace with honor”. Both very 70s Retro. (as was Holbrooke’s comparison of the War on Terror with the War on Poverty, though I guess that’s more ’60s/LBJ retro – but we have a tie-in, because in the ’70s folks began looking for the “moral equivalent of war” along those lines, rather than wanting to fight, well, real wars, which became soooo passe’).
I think at bottom that’s the problem with Kerry – and with the Democratic Party (and Liberalism) generally. They remain shaped by the ’70s – even Dems too young to have experienced it seem to have absorbed this world-view, by osmosis. Their attitudes towards America and the world are rooted in ’70s-era experiences. The “New Democrat” transformation Clinton was supposed to make didn’t really take with Democrats as a whole. It proved illusory.
So no wonder that the Kerry side of the campaign has, both pro and con, seemed to revolve around Vietnam-era experiences as if tethered to it. Even when talking about the present, what to do about our current war or economic situation at home, it seems to be an echo of the ’70s. This is the progressive movement today? An echo of the past?
The other day Ron Silver asked Alan Colmes since when did Liberals sneer at the idea of spreading freedom, liberating women, and the like. He didn’t get an answer from Colmes, but the aftermath of the LBJ Administration seems to be when Liberals started to doubt the whole “pay any price, bear any burden” thing. Same era. But I should probably stop my comment here, it’s long enough.
(Oh, yes, I know the “Secret Plan” was ’68, not ’70s; no need for someone to correct).
Ironically, if one looks at Kerry’s phrasing, the best guess is that the past Administration that a Kerry Administration would most closely resemble is that of the President he loathed – Nixon. . .
“For me the choice is simple. By their friends shall ye know them. Democrats: Clintons, Carter, Big Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin,….. the list goes on interminably.
Are those of you Kerry supporters really able to say with a straight face that these are people you trust with the country? Are these people you count as brothers?”
Sure,with a straight face, I would vastly prefer either Clinton, slippery politicians as they are, to the “Boy In The Bubble” with his messianic fantasies (Mission From God) who currently runs the country. Jesse Jackson and Howard Dean operate (however ineffectively) from altruistic motives, unlike the crony capitalists who surround GWB (Cheney/Halliburton,Kenny Lay/Enron)
along with his religious fanatic friends (Robertson/Christian Coalition,Aschroft,etc.)
This website has a bit of the “bubble” thing goin on too, where the MSM articles about GWB’s divorce from reality, as reported by so many staffers, are ignored in favor of some mythical image of GWB as a determined and competetent warrior(at least he played one in his flight suit on the deck of a carrier).
It doesn’t matter if Bush isn’t smart enough to pull off a perfect war or if he’s attacking for the wrong reason. Since the Arab world wants us dead, turning the Arab world on its head is the right thing to do. I’ll take the fortunate coincidence.
It does not matter that the Arab world is enraged by the Iraq war – their mildy peeved state that led to 9/11 is enough for us to attack them.
The number of Iraqis killed by the war does not matter. It is less than the number that Saddam Hussein would have killed in the same time.
On Iraq,
Retired officer, over 21 years experience at the enlisted infantry and armor officer level.
Selected by name to be an Observer / Controller at the National Training center.
Currently hired by the Military as an counsultant to teach military brigade level doctrine in both High Intensity and Low Intensity conflict.
Part of my duties are to talk, coordinate and discuss current operations with those on the way to Iraq and those who have returned so that we can pass on lessons learned.
We are not losing this war. We are eliminating the terrorists who would otherwise be focused ont he attacking other american targets – over seas and at home.
We are putting the Iraqi Forces into the fight. Granted they don’t alway perform as well as we want, but they are performing. Look to the recent examples of Najaf and Samarra. Wait to see who is involved in the pacification of Falujaha (sp).
Gen Shinseki was not forced into retirement. He left the Chief job on time and on schedule. His retirement was planned prior to his statements to congress. And by the way, I still think he was positioning himself to run for congress upon retirement – as a democrat in Hawaii of course.
Gen Shoemaker came out of retirement – a former SOF guy. Do you really think he would let Mr. Rumsfeld push him around. Everything I see leads me to believe that Gen Shoemaker is doing a great job as the the Chairman.
While was are extended in maintaining current force levels in Iraq – we are not breaking the Army nor Marine Corps. Reenlistment rates meeting objectives, enlistment rates are meeting objectives. Personnaly, I do hope we put two divisions back on the roles. But, we wouldn’t be doing this if Mr. Clinton hadn’t cut an extra Corps from the structure back in the early 90s.
Of course Mr. Bush listens to his subordinates. However, once a decision is made, the boss has decided. Time for discussion is over. As a former soldier, surely you understand that. Once the fight is won we can do an AAR.
Regards.
A question on Kerry and Bush I have been thinking about the last few days. Which president, when their term ends, would be more likely to commute sentences like Clinton did?
#3356
I am somewhat bemused that your reason for choosing Bush seems to be concerns that Kerry will “cut and run” and settle for something less than success in Iraq in favor of bringing the troops home quickly, because I am quite sure Kerry won’t do that. Hopefully, Kerry will win and you’ll be pleasantly surprised.
I suggest that you go talk to a couple of vietnam-era vets.
Uh. my wind caused a change of jockey shorts. huh huh.
Hey Top,
Doctrine changes. When did you get out?
Go read General Franks’ Book. You wanna yell about Iraq? The troop levels were his idea.
This ain’t your Vietnam, and the volunteers of today are not the conscripts of the 60’s.
Armed Liberal: “I’ve voting for George Bush for President.”
Long life and good health to you. I hope this doesn’t cost you your friends and/or any family members.
I would also have wished you well if you had chosen the other option. But I would not have been concerned that you might lose all or part of your face to face social network.
Good! Your reasoning is sound and I am with you on this.
A.L.
As an occasional visitor to this blog,it comes as no suprise that you are voting for Mr. Bush. I am sure it will come as less than a shock that I am voting for Mr. Kerry. What I want to discuss is the reasoning behind the decision. For starters, this conversation over lunch with your wildly successful friend:
“I don’t think that matters as much as you do,” I told him. “I’m probably smarter than you are – in terms of IQ tests and grades in school. You’re a multimillionaire, and I’m not – even though I’ve been in businesses parallel to you for as long as you. Why do you think that is?”
“Because I’m more determined than you are,” he replied.
“Exactly,” I responded.
It’s a reasonable argument but it fails to properly frame the issue at hand. For me, the question isn’t who is more resolute but who’s policies would have a better chance of success.
Mr. Bush has shown no ability to adapt to the reality we are facing in Iraq and beyond. His policy speeches are not about policy. Things like, “we’re winning”, “we have the bad guys on the run”, “we are moving towards democracy in Iraq”, these statements simplify the challenges we face and ignore the variate adverse outcomes that are all too real. We ignore these adverse outcomes at our peril. For instance, recently Iraqi’s were polled on their likely choice for the upcoming elections and the results are far from encouraging for US foreign policy. The two most popular leaders in Iraq represent religious parties and have financial backing from the Iranian government. We can pretend that the mullahs in Iran want the same thing we do for Iraq or we can live in the real world. We cannot do both. One of those adverse outcomes that we need to consider is the real possibility of a Pro-Iranian theocratic government resulting from these upcoming elections. What then? Mr. Bush was already asked that question and here is his response:
“President Bush said Tuesday that he would be “disappointed” if free and fair elections in Iraq led to the seating of an Islamic government, but that the United States would accept the results. “Democracy is democracy,” he said. “If that’s what people choose, that’s what the people choose.”
Now think about that for a minute. 1100 dead soldiers, nearly 8000 wounded, $200b spent or in the pipeline, for what? To trade Saddam for a proxy government controlled by the Iranian mullahs?
Bush may be the more resolute candidate but in my book, intelligence, and by that I mean the ability analyze information from desparate viewpoints and form some rational decision that can be defended with logic, matters a great deal more that you think. That’s why I will vote for Mr. Kerry.
Jesse Jackson, altruistic?!?!? Thanks for the laugh on a Friday. I’ll be giggling all weekend…
What solved the vote question for me is that in 1991, after Saddam Hussein invaded and seized Kuwait, and after Bush the Elder assembled EXACTLY THE KIND OF COALITION John Kerry says is essential, John Kerry voted against going to war. Kerry’s vote for inaction showed a mindset that is not suited for handling the dangers of the modern world. To have allowed Saddam to take and hold Kuwait would probably have meant we would have faced an Iraq armed with nuclear weapons in 4-5 years.
As best as I can tell all of the models
which would predict a Kerry victory assume
massive turnout by new voters. That is
those who for what ever reason – age or
inclination – have not voted before.
Will they be able to find their polling
place? More importantly, do they remember
where they put their voter registration
card? A gentle reminder on election day
thay one cannot vote without the card would
probably keep a massive number of new voters
AWAY from the polls.
And – by definition – since they have never
voted before, they would be so clueless as
to not know they DON’T NEED NO STINKING CARD
to vote.
No way Kerry can win this one. He is behind
with registered voters and even worse behind
with LIKELY voters.
I don’t ask my president to be perfect. But I do want him to exhibit integrity, leadership and vision. The only candidate that offers all three is Bush.
Kerry will always be suspect in that he refuses to release his military records. How can he still be embarrassed for things he did 30 years ago? My only option is to believe that he is hiding something. If he is proud of his military service, why won’t he share it with us so that we can be proud of it too.
Kerry evidences no demonstrable leadership qualities. His only claim to any sort of management success came as a commander of a tiny boat somewhere in the swamps of SE Asia. Even this 120 day exercise is tainted by confusing statements over Cambodia, Sam Pan fighting and his first Purple Heart. In his 20 years in the Senate, he apparently couldn’t even coalesce fellow Senators into supporting his legislative initiatives, if he in fact had any. I doubt that he could successfully manage a small business to say nothing of an extremely large and complex one. Would anyone hire him tomorrrow as CEO of say Haliburton?
Finally I question his personal vision and commitment. He never seems to have the courage of his own convictions except that the UN is good and tax cuts are bad. Has he ever supported Israel as friend and trustworthy democracy in a terrible part of the world? Back to his Senate record, why wasn’t he leading charges for Kyoto, AIDS, Medicare reform, Social Security reform, Immigration reform, stronger defense, better intelligence systems. His record is glaringly void on any substantive matters. Even if they were unpopular measures, he might have pursued them with vigor and set out to change minds. His entire vision today is that he could do better than Bush. Where’s the beef?
Kerry Thinks He Can Win War on Terror With French, UN Help—-
But They’ve Already Surrendered!
Jacques Myard, a deputy of France’s ruling party, thinks the English language’s (by which he means America’s) influence in the world is short-lived. In fact, he believes that French schoolchildren should be taught Arabic, since that is obviously the coming global power. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/3944731.stm for the whole story.
Meanwhile, over at the UN, they don’t even have the moral courage to outright condemn terrorism, while telling the media that, well, yeah, they did, sorta. See http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.21419,filter.all/news_detail.asp for the whole story.
The question is asked…Are we better off today than four years ago? In considering this question, were we better off after the perpetrators of WTC 1 were jailed?, were we better off after the perpetrators of the Kobar Towers attack were ferreted out? (hasn’t happened), were we better off after we left Somalia, were we better off after those who bombed the U.S. Cole were all captured? (hasn’t happened). Are better off today than four years ago?? YOU BETCHA!! We have seen the enemy and we have engaged him! We have pushed the battlefront from our shores to his, we are now prepared to do violence, and we are resolute.
Armed Liberal, Sarah Baxter, Totten, Hitchens, etc., the numerous former liberals who are now gung-ho for Bush are united on one idea – we are in a desperate war for civilization, and our entire existence as a nation is threatened, even with “a holocaust”, if we don’t support Bush. Maybe I missed something, but how exactly are a bunch of Islamic jihadists going to destroy the West? Our real enemies – Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union – both had industries, leading scientists, invested millions and billions into technology, weapons development, armaments, training, education. The Islamic jihadists have no industry and no science, their education is essentially a 10th century religious education. They have no productive economic base. Oil and to a limited extent opium are the sole source of real revenue for these people. Their weapons are primarily cheap knock-offs of 30 year old Soviet technology. There is a reason why they were generally considered a nuisance and not a serious threat before 9/11. And yes I remember 9/11 very well, I also remember they used OUR planes against us because they don’t have any bombers or even decent airplanes of their own. A 9/11 stunt required organization, some funding, some evil imagination and a suicidal ideology. It does not show that the terrorists have any real capacity to do long-term significant damage to the United State. Nothing we have discovered in Iraq or Afghanistan shows otherwise. Stateless terrorist groups are still in no position to use nukes or chemical weapons. To prevent this from happening we do need allies, we do need support from an international community of trusted legitimate nation states. I agree that Kerry’s definition of who should be included in that community is too broad but Bush has managed to even alienate Great Britain. We cannot afford to let Bush stay in office.
Well, I’m not surprised, but I am disappointed. I’m sorry that what seems to me to be badly directed and badly focused aggression resonates with so many Americans.
Frankly, I think resoluteness and determination are overrated in attaining one’s objective. (I suppose to argue with the same analogy, a great many failed businesses were run by owners with great determination: it’s a very American thing to insist that a bad outcome arises from the personal failings of the actor.) I don’t think lack of resolve sabotaged the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, nor did it turn Southern Lebanon into a qwagmire for Israel. A bad strategery married to poor tactical decisions will undo the most noble speeches about Freedom on the March.
And, as an aside, anyone who thinks, as the commenter above does, that “we are eliminating the terrorists who would otherwise be focused ont he attacking other american targets – over seas and at home” doesn’t understand the terrorists’ strategy very well. They weren’t planning to attack us with hundreds of ill-trained militiamen from the slums of Baghdad and the Sunni triangle; that’s not how they attacked nor who they used on 9/11, and it’s not who they will use on their future terror strikes in the West.
A.L. –
Lucky guy. Congrats.
I’m still straddling the fence because I was really, really impressed by Kerry shooting that goose the other day.
I was blessed with hearing part of his speech to the politicians on the hill back in 1971 or thereabouts. Happens I was over there in Nam ’bout same time as him…..365 days. Just glad to get out of there. All we were doing was killing and getting killed and I never really could figure out the point of it. I decided eventually it was better to kill than get killed. Didn’t have to worry about that when I got home. I sneaked into San Diego and had just about completely changed into my civies before I got down to the dock. Pitched the old duffel bag behind some barrels and, with a few things stuffed in my pocket (the .45 I bought from a Marine for example) I was a born again civlian.
Just being happy to get home alive and never quite understanding why I was over there in the first place (oh, I had a rough idea, but it didn’t make a lot of sense) Thoughts of that exercise in frustration have always bugged me a little. Well, actually it bugged me a lot. But I had happily voted for Nixon in 1968 and again in 1972 and he (actually Kissinger) finally gave the N. Vietnames everything they wanted and we exited. That, from TV footage I saw, was a bit awkward. But eventually we got everyone (maybe) like McCain and that guy in Nebraska (name escapes me; have never been much impressed by him) and the other guys out too.
Whew. That’s a damned boring story to read.
Who to vote for? There’s only one issue and that’s Iraq. The war on terrorism, the ecoinomy, education, health care, the million homeless and walking our streets…..none of that really stacks up to Iraq.
We have to win that war. There’s no way getting out. Kerry or Bush we’ve got the same military over there and I can’t see the end result being any different. There is no “exit strategy.”
Think what you want but Kerry’s plan is a joke. Bush basically says we’ll be finsihed when we’re finished. Hmm….Not really that impressive in any case. Kerry goes goose hunting and is a born again commander who will lead our military to … what? I don’t think he has a clue. I don’t think Bush has either but I suspect we’ll be there longer, get more folks killed, and may, with luck (since he seems to be relying on that) eventually get out of there. Democracy in Iraq? Give me a break. The natives in Afghanistan thought it was pretty cool the other day to vote. For what? The warlords probably all partied and got drunk that night because it was such a damned joke.
So I haven’t made my mind up yet. Yeah, you’re right about Iraq and I agree that’s #1. Future of the Democratic and Republican parties? Personally I hope neither one has a future. Time to bring back the Whigs or what not. I will give the Republicans credit for having a sly and clever liar for their national chairman. The Demos have that jerk with an IQ just a notch above Moron.
Good luck with yer votin’. In my state it doesn’t make a hill of difference either. Hell, I don’t even know if Nader is on the ballot. We got the Libertarian guy. We usually have a Conservatrive or Socialist party guy (yep, no kidding; I could swear a Socialist pops up now and then).
Shrub II? I dunno. I’d write you in but I don’t have your address and I think that’s required.
BTW, you still owe me an Armed Liberal mouse pad.
Have fun boys and girls. Flip a coin. Personally I’m not fond of a guy who shoots a goose and can’t carry it himself so you know which way I’m leaning. But AL is lucky becase analyzing these two guys is way beyond my abilities.
Let our military handle it. Give ’em what they ask for. They have no interest in losing and things just might turn out OK. Or not. Fallujah is going to fall before Nov. 2. You can bet on that. Maybe.
Nick Foresta thinks that determination isn’t the key success factor in difficult situations.
Andrew Lazarus agrees: Frankly, I think resoluteness and determination are overrated in attaining one’s objective. (I suppose to argue with the same analogy, a great many failed businesses were run by owners with great determination: it’s a very American thing to insist that a bad outcome arises from the personal failings of the actor.)
Actually, there are a number of studies of entrepreneurial success in difficult markets, and more anecdotal knowledge accumulated among the venture capital and serious entrepreneurial community. Determination, resoluteness and a willingness to be incredibly flexible about tactics and incredibly accepting of external events — while resolutely sticking to one’s main goals and principles (i.e. one’s picture for how one sees oneself as an active shaper of the future) — is precisely and by a significant degree the main predictor of long-term entrepreneurial success.
Failed businesses are usually started by those who either cannot flexibly respond to “facts on the ground” or whose commitment was to a single business model rather than to a broader goal.
I don’t have time to cite specific studies, but those who really want to dig into this might look at the MIT journal for alumni circa, say, the early 90s when intellectual property spinnoffs from federally funded research laid the groundwork for a lot of successful startups — and a bunch that never succeeded or that failed as soon as things got tough. The first head of MIT’s intellectual property office (along with Stanford’s, the first two at major universities and quite lucrative for the schools) had a great little equation he would put up at conferences, showing the factors for success. Passion and commitment in the face of difficulty was weighted the most significant factor, at about 60% as I recall.
Speaking anecdotally, that has been my observation as well. I have served as a senior manager or executive in multiple successful small companies, including one turnaround that resulted in a successful IPO and a company that is still quietly doing well 10 yrs later, as well as having been a techie in Silicon Valley and other starups that struggled. In all, nearly 30 years’ experience and observation are behind my own judgement on this.
Excellent choice, AL!
Being perceptive enough to recognize the deadly threat to the western world puts you head and shoulders above most people who mistakenly call themselves “liberal.”
The muslim extremist killers seem to be in bed with western leftists in this battle. So you can expect to be attacked from the left. That’s the way it goes when a person takes a brave stand against decadence and nihilism.
Kerry was a sorry SOB back in the 70s and his abominable senate record suggests he has gotten even worse in the interim.
comment 33472 shows the lack of perception we are trying to fight. OMFG, do you really think that radical Islam gives a flaming rat fart who you voted for? Please pay attention: Being an American makes you a target. This is not paranoia; this is simply reading the pronouncements of radical Islam. Mr. Bush seems to understand this. Mr. Kerry wants to go snowboarding, without those annoying Secret Service Agents to knock him down.
And this snippet: “…that’s what I’m trying to offer America right now — a realistic way to get our troops home, with honor, by achieving our goals but by sharing the burden and risk.” Holy Flaming Earthworms, is there anyone else out there who hears Nixon’s “Peace with Honor” horsecrap echoed? Wasn’t Nixon the Evil One that Kerry was opposed to all those years ago?
Harry O’Nihan is missing the point by a continent or so. The point is not what weapons were used on 9/11, or how they compare with the relative societal level of a given culture. If those weapons are available and aquireable, (SP(?), but if you choose to wiullfully misunderstand, MYDAHD), what makes you think that those that hate us, for reasons justified or not, would hesitate to use them? The weapons that took Nobel prize winners a generation ago require a good machinist and the right materials now.
Andrew J. Lazarus is missing another point, in that the whole idea is to fight in someone else’s sandbox.
Really, people, this isn’t that tough. Unless you are willing to hold yourself hostage and moved to a place named “Target, USA”, and be the first ones to be vaporized if these religious imbeciles get their hands on a nuclear weapon or others WMD, STFU!
I remember something from a humanities class I took once. “Don’t look at history with your 20th century blinders on”. The implication being that you can’t judge what a given person did out of the context of the culture he grew up in. An extremely reasonable idea. The corollary in this case would involve judging other people by our standards. Just because you wouldn’t drop a nuke on someone else, is it rational to conclude that any other group or person would similarly refrain from doing that to you? If you’re paying attentin to the proclamations of radical Islamists, you must say no. If you say yes, after all that has happened the last few years, you simply aren’t paying attention.
Perserverence and determination plus adaptability is the key to success. If you are going to attack a goal and not adjust as needed to achieve your goal, you are doomed to drudgery at best, disaster at worst. But the goal remains, and achieving it remains the central focus.
Marines know this, it is what Chesty Puller preached morning, noon, and night. The letter posted by jonathan instantly reminded me of Chesty’s approach to battle.
But beyond that, beyond killing and destroying, at the end of the day, we provide the establishment of freedom, we being the United States of America. We provide the the muslims and the christians and the wiccans all get to worship thier god.
Reviewing the history of the Taliban, Al Queda, and wahabbism in general, they prefer killing anyone that holds opposing ideas.
I do not know how someone gets the impression that Kerry or the democrats will confront this threat, at best, they propose to have others confront them for us, at worst, they will pontificate and ply us with rhetoric while the above mentioned actors attack our society, fearing only the attorney generals, instead of the four star generals.
Perserverence and determination plus adaptability is the key to success. If you are going to attack a goal and not adjust as needed to achieve your goal, you are doomed to drudgery at best, disaster at worst. But the goal remains, and achieving it remains the central focus.
Marines know this, it is what Chesty Puller preached morning, noon, and night. The letter posted by jonathan instantly reminded me of Chesty’s approach to battle.
But beyond that, beyond killing and destroying, at the end of the day, we provide the establishment of freedom, we being the United States of America. We provide the the muslims and the christians and the wiccans all get to worship thier god.
Reviewing the history of the Taliban, Al Queda, and wahabbism in general, they prefer killing anyone that holds opposing ideas.
I do not know how someone gets the impression that Kerry or the democrats will confront this threat, at best, they propose to have others confront them for us, at worst, they will pontificate and ply us with rhetoric while the above mentioned actors attack our society, fearing only the attorney generals, instead of the four star generals.
Enraging the Arab world? This excuse was used in 1979, during the First Gulf war and throughout the 1990’s as a means to stop us from going to war against an enemy which had declared war upon us thirty years ago.
After thirty years of Islamic Terrorist War, why not consider American rage? How many Americans attacked by Arabs died before 9/11 because of ARAB HATE for anything non-Arab/non-Islam?
I am voting Bush because I am sick and tired of the weak-knee weenies running away from the responsibility of defending our people!
When is the Arab world going to apologize for misery they have perpetuated upon humanity?
Arabs can only dream of living with a government accountable to the people as one called of the United States of America.
Our way of life is under attack, stand up an fight back!
It appears that I’m agreeing with “Hitchens”:http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s=hitchens :
I’ll add to this when I resume the series Monday.
A.L.
If you want to see Bush re-elected, it is important that you vote for him, even if you live in a state like California. If Bush should win the national popular vote, those people over yonder who support Kerry will not be able to raise that false flag about the electoral college not legitimizing the results.
AL: [My friend from grad school] understands the war, but isn’t convinced that Bush is smart enough to pull it off.
Maybe Bush has a higher IQ than Kerry.
AL: Bush, and the contemporary Republican Party trigger a kind of visceral reaction in me; the evangelical connection …
How would folks react if someone confessed to a visceral reaction to the Democratic Party because of “the Jewish connection”? Btw, scary social reactionary Jimmy Carter is an evangelical.
roublen vesseau: I am somewhat bemused that your reason for choosing Bush seems to be concerns that Kerry will “cut and run” and settle for something less than success in Iraq in favor of bringing the troops home quickly, because I am quite sure Kerry won’t do that.
I guess it depends on how one defines “success”. Kerry has already told us that Iraqi democracy isn’t a necessary part of the equation:
Tom Volckhausen: This website has a bit of the “bubble” thing goin on too, where the MSM articles about GWB’s divorce from reality, as reported by so many staffers, are ignored …this:
I’m going to vote for Bush, but I admit I’m concerned about “the ‘bubble’ thing”. During the first debate, he looked like someone who had completely forgotten how to argue.
Jonathan posts a good summary of the Democratic/Pro-Kerry position on Bush and the Iraq war:
“That might make some sense if the war had been prudent in the first place. Everything I read, though, suggests a policy machine willing to hear only what it wanted to hear, irresponsibly silencing dissent within its own ranks, selectively picking and choosing intelligence.”
Having worked in Naval Intel back in the 80’s this sounds like the classic spin of people who didn’t get their policy positions chosen. Every chain of command must “selectively pick and choose” the intelligence that they find credible. How can it be otherwise? There is no question that Bush’s strong bias was against positions that lowballed Saddam’s threat. After 9/11, he must have felt that this was the only responsible thing to do. Indeed, I’d bet cash that Clinton’s team would have done the *exact* same thing given their previous rhetoric on the topic (I left Intel work before Clinton came into office, though).
The only difference is that, with Bush in office, the democrats need a spin (“silencing dissent”, “inflexible”, etc.) to use against the president. But, seriously, isn’t this criticism likely to be aimed at *anyone* who makes the hard decision to commit troops in an uncertain threat environment? And isn’t it universally true that those who lose the battle for the chain of command’s buy-in feel entitled to a bit of schadenfreude if things don’t work out perfectly?
and more…
“I fail to see how we are any safer post-Iraq. To me, it is a blunder. Plain and simple.”
Hmmm…so we went into Iraq to uncover WMDs and we did indeed find a huge and threatening cache of nuclear weapons. Ok, we found them in Libya but, by any rational measure, a failure to commit to the Iraqi war translates *directly* into at least one nuclear weapon in the hands of a known terrorist sympathizer. We are objectively safer simply because we have at least one fewer nuclear weapon to worry about (not to mention the uncovering of the Khan nuclear proliferation market and the termination of Saddam’s plan to reconstitute his WMD program as soon as sanctions were lifted). If you don’t find this convincing because this isn’t exactly what Bush intended then please explain to me how a policy of passivism *would have* uncovered this weaponry.
“We’ve enraged much of the Arab world that wasn’t already enraged. We’ve given terrorist recruiters unbelievable material to win over disillusioned Muslim youths.”
This is the standard left-liberal boilerplate excuse for doing nothing in the face of an active threat environment (“We’ll just get them even madder!”).
The simple fact is that the Islamic world has been “enraged” for decades. It is also an extraordinarily shallow reading of a very complex political situation. Far more important than the “rage factor” is the fact that some of the most brutal thugs in the Islamic world had come to the conclusion before 9/11 that the West was a paper tiger whose cage they could rattle with impunity. Osama, for example, cited this directly in his “stronger horse” speech that was – in direct contravention of Jonathan’s thesis – directed at recruiting new Jihadists. Indeed, Jonathan’s belief in the strategic necessity of retreat appears not to have been shaken one bit by the ferocity of the 9/11 attacks. Attacks which, by the way, came after over twenty years of retreat in the face of Islamic terrorism.
While the overall conflict with Radical Islam will take a variety of strategies to prosecute, the first and most vital step is to change the Islamist’s belief that violence may well lead to victory. It is crystal clear that Bush knows this and is determined to challenge the Islamists on their own turf. It is not at all clear that Kerry has any clue.
If you believe that Liberal Democracy is worth fighting for and are not blinkered by fantasies of singing Kumbaya with Saddam and Osama, then I think A.L.’s decision to back Bush’s reelection is the only reasonable stance. I too am voting for George Bush.
@ obelus
“The future of the Democratic party is in the hands of the Michael Moores, Alec Baldwins, the Jimmy Carters – “
Whoa…That is reason enough to vote Bush.
BTW, just for some historic perspective, it is important to remember that FDR was mercilessly criticized by top generals during WWII on his handling of the war. Just read this article if you don’t believe me.
Congratulations on putting aside partisan differences for the benefit of the good of the country. I know it is difficult to choose something which goes against most of your friends and family- you are brave to stand for your values and what is MOST IMPORTANT at this time in history. I also believe you are totally correct in your analysis- the social issues can wait until 2008, winning the war NOW must be done.
Good thread…but I was taken aback by the fake “paleo-conservative” who said that he had been in Vietnam and couldn’t back Bush.
If you are a Vietnam veteran and still do not realize that that war successfully split the Comintern thus ending Soviet-Chinese participation in taking over the world…then you fit the description of dumb war veteran that John Kerry perpetuated on the world…with Kerry himself being the best example of an idiot who fought but didn’t know what he was fighting for (it was called “freedom”).
People like “Mr. Paleoconservative” fail to realize that Bush fully intends to deal with the Iranian regime after the election. A Bush victory will allow us to finally deal with Syria and Iran in the manner in which they deserve (for killing 1100 of our soldiers in order to influence our elections).
On the idea that the President isn’t “flexible”…I agree that he doesn’t tend to “mix it up” with leftists for debating practice. Example: while practicing for the debates, he had a conservative guy represent Kerry!!! I would have debated left wing college students for practice before those debates. Sure…they may have reported back to Kerry what tactics I might use…but I would far more understand what kind of lunacy I was up against.
If I were Bush, I would be at Harvard and Columbia all the time talking with the students….but then again a President knows so many secrets and is playing so many subterfuges toward the enemy that effective defense against leftist onslaughts would require letting the enemy know what is really going on…Bush’s silence on what is really going on is probably helping us to achieve our goals secretly.
It is certainly idiotic for pro-Kerry people on this thread to assume that the Administration doesn’t know what it is doing. That assumption just doesn’t carry water in an argument. You can disagree with the idea of democratizing the Middle East (as opposed to destroying them all, which is the only other alternative). But it is silly to propagandize that the administration simply doesn’t know what it is doing when Fallujah is about to fall.
Speaking of Fallujah…it is interesting that Bush has waited until the last week before the election before joining that battle. I wish I knew of better sources of info than just Debka.com to find out what is really happening. The news media is, of course, completely in the dark about that.
Very articulate post, as is typical here.
BTW – are you aware that you’re linked from GW’s blog?
http://www.georgewbush.com/blog/archives/week_2004_10_17.html#001990
The post starts out with “This election, blog endorsements are becoming as coveted as your newspaper’s endorsement.” Congrats on getting the well-deserved notice.
Hmm, the sweet smell of roger l simon’s asshole.
AL, I’m new here, but I think you miss one crucial point — which is, which man actually knows what he’s talking about?
Perhaps you haven’t found yourself or seen others in a ‘bubble’ as not many of us have the luxury of being in one for long, but I can tell ya, commitment within the constraints of a bubble…the results aren’t pretty…for the obvious reason that you can be committed to going off a cliff without even realizing it.
In my opinion, decision-making is analogous to government in that it involves three different activities: deliberation, judgment and action. Our founding fathers had the wisdom to realize that any one of these activities had its own interests which, given free rein, would ultimately harm the making of wise decisions. For instance, one who deliberates too much would be paralyzed or confused. Another might leap before thinking, etc. I think it’s pretty clear that Bush represents action without deliberation or judgment. Faith precludes deliberation, and when a man has reasons A, B, C, D, E, and F for going for war — and they change in importance and relevance with the passing of time — the squeamishness involved strongly suggests a lack of judgment. Can such a man be trusted to make wise decisions?
In some ways, we don’t need to ask this question, because the results of his actions are there before us, plain as day.
Yes, Saddam has been caught. Libya is talking to us. The Taliban is no longer in power. But, in many crucial respects, our long-term security situation vis-a-vis five states — Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and Russia — has gotten worse, not better. Iran is on track to possessing nuclear bombs. North Korea has already got them. Iraq was not a threat, but now finds itself in chaos, and in a best case scenario, will have “tenuous stability”. Afghanistan is still a failed state, though a different type. Russia is returning to dictatorship.
Meanwhile, several others are slipping under the radar. Pakistan is a glaring example here. So is Saudi Arabia. More subtly perhaps, is the lack of political engagement with China and India, who are bound to become extremely competitive economically; Mr. Bush has made no move to prepare us — barely are these long-term economic rivals mentioned.
“Domestic issues” such as education are really foreign policy issues as well. A well-educated America can compete with the world. A socially tolerant America — a well-viewed America — will continue to benefit from investment and a brain drain. A religiously fundamental one is unlikely to succeed since science and technology are the force behind economic growth. Finally, the unprecedented gap between the rich and poor, a failed health care system, an unprepared (since overstretched) military and a discomforting defecit all disfavor long-term social, economic and national security. Mr. Bush has aggravated all of these problems, but by all accounts, means to continue.
On balance, what good has Mr. Bush accomplished in the last four years? If you were him, would you be proud of yourself? And if the answer is yes, how much of it is rationalization, rather than a good hard look at the facts?
“9/11 changed everything” is a common refrain, but it’s not true. It didn’t change most things. A lot of us woke up to a world which already existed that day and had to play catch up. Apparently the Bush Administration was one of them. This is not something to applaud but it is arguably even more detrimental to become fixated upon it, because the world will continue to change, whether you are aware of it or not and the wise man would anticipate it.
Kerry strikes me as the more forward-looking of the two, and also the one who has a better grasp on reality. He has, that is, a commitment to reality that Mr. Bush apparently lacks. This is, I think, the commitment that must come before any action taken on reality’s behalf.
Or, to put it another way, Mr. Bush is committed to crossing the street, but not to looking both ways. This has wrought predictably disasterous results. We can hope that Kerry will do better.
Armed Liberal:
1) the war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism;
2) the war in Iraq does not have to be won for America, although it would be nice for the people of Iraq if we could pull it off (I have my doubts whoever is in office, but Bush will never do it);
3) Bush will abandon, as he has already, the wider war on terror to focus on other foreign policy goals (ignoble ones in my opinion) and simply use, as he has in Iraq, the terrorism card to cover up thes other policy goals;
4) Bush will enable our future enemies, as he has already done with Pakistan;
5) Bush will create more terrorism than he destroys;
6) Bush will wreck our economy over Iraq without anything to show for it;
7) Hitler was determined also; Jim Jones (the “kool-ade” guy) was determined; Charles Manson was determined; the crime bosses for the mob have been and are determined; the terrorists are determined – being determined is simply that; it doesn’t make you right, it doesn’t make your position moral, and it doesn’t make your decisions sound or successful.
Bush fails on all counts and your delusion that the war in Iraq is significant in the war on terror isn’t one that Bush really shares.
Advocate for God (?!)
What exactly is Bush’s agenda in Iraq if it’s not the WoT?
PS: If it’s that old lefty canard “it’s all about the oil” I’m afraid I won’t be able to take you terribly seriously.
Advocate for God (?!)
What exactly is Bush’s agenda in Iraq if it’s not the WoT?
PS: If it’s that old lefty canard “it’s all about the oil” I’m afraid I won’t be able to take you terribly seriously.
Your mistake is in thinking that evaluating the candidates words is a reasonable way to make a decision. But in this case, particularly with Bush, this is a very stupid thing to believe.
Bush’s actions rarely match his words. Bush’s supposed ‘determination’ has been consistent only rhetorically, if you pay attention to his behavior, it’s clear that he reverses himself on an issue as soon as it becomes unpopular.
Also, Bush rarely achieves his goals, and in the case of the War on Terra, has achieved NONE of his primary goals, and only a few of his secondary goals. So evaluating his goals and his ‘steadfastness’ without regard to his demonstrated lack of success is just stupid.
Kerry on the other hand, doesn’t have much of a recent record to compare with his words. The 30 year old record of his time in Viet Nam is encouraging – it shows determination and a large degree of success at achieving goals. But it’s 30 years ago, so it’s less certain that we can trust it to show us what kind of man he is now.
Still, it’s a choice between a provent incompetent with good speach writers, verses a comparitive unknown who WAS a clear success back when his opponant was still a drunken bum.
Given that we have clear actions to analyze, it’s pretty idiotic to base your decision on words instead.
Bones
Simone –
Thanks for the long and thoughtful comment.
There are a bunch of places where I don’t see the facts in the same way you do; I’m scrambling so don;t have time to pull links together (and hope that others do it for me), but here are a few:
The ‘bubble’ – yes, I’m not thrilled with the structured infomration around Bush, but I’ll suggest that Kerry is as deeply in one (in fact, that the entire Left is in one right now);
“On balance, what good has Mr. Bush accomplished in the last four years? If you were him, would you be proud of yourself?” and “Yes, Saddam has been caught. Libya is talking to us. The Taliban is no longer in power.” – well, I’d conmsider that a meaningful list of accomplishments;
“our long-term security situation vis-a-vis five states — Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and Russia — has gotten worse, not better… Here I’d disagree as well. We’re no longer in denial on Iran, and while the mullah have to be more revved up, I’d say those opposed to them are, as well. We were in full denial mode on North Korea under the deals cut by the Clinton administration (and whihc I fully supported); we’re not any more, and we’re working with everyone in the region to contain them. Afghanistan just had an election…what am I missing there? Russia is cooperating with us on basing and with Israel on antiterror activities. I’m not seeing the facts on the ground to support your conclusions;
“Meanwhile, several others are slipping under the radar. Pakistan is a glaring example here. So is Saudi Arabia. More subtly perhaps, is the lack of political engagement with China and India, who are bound to become extremely competitive economically… Huh? We’re ankle-deep in Pakistan right now – as much as we can be without Musharrif triggering a civil war. Similarly, Saudi Arabia has gone from cath-and-release on the terrorists they succor to firefights and execution. We’re deeply engaged with India, as a part of our efforts to bring Pakistan and India closer (which has actually happened, and which you left off your list of accomplishments above). China is certainly a problem,but we’re working with them on North Korea which is the sharpest common point of pain.
Help me out here…how is that we’re seeing things so differently?
A.L.
How much worse do you want this nation to get? Do you want to invade another nation that has neither weapons of mass destruction or ties to alQaeda? Do you want to wait another 4 years before bin Laden is brought to justice? Is stagnant employment, shrinking wages, and increasing poverty alright with you? Do you feel that the rich are overtaxed? Does the constant stream of evidence that the war was poorly planned and executed not sway you? Does the largest budget deficit in our history not sway you? Do 1,000 dead American soldiers and 0 WMD not sway you? Do 3,000 dead civilans and 1 ignored document entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States” not sway you? Can you even imagine a person doing a worse job as President? If so I would very much like to hear it.
President Bush makes gut decisions regardless of the facts in front of him. You apparently make decisions the same way. But please remember, with all your faith in Bush’s “determination,” that he was unable to protect us from the terrorists, he invaded a country which had nothing to do with the terrorists, and now his own State Department estimates that terrorism is at its highest level in 20 years.
You know, it’s pretty easy to be “determined” when it requires no sacrifice on your part, and I’m sure Bush is “determined” to send a lot more children to die in Iraq. To you, that’s leadership. I think most of America will decide we can do better.
To AL:
Resolution is not a plan.
Resolution is all well & good if you are pointed in the right direction, but if you are not…
There are plenty of leaders-RESOLUTE leaders- who led their country into disaster because they were pointed in the wrong direction.Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao were all as resolute as could be. Indeed, that was the problem. They were so resolute, they ignored reality.
Its time for liberals to stand up and say;
1. The intelligence on which we went to wear was wrong
2.Therefore the decision to go to war was wrong
3.The aftermath of the war was wrong
Lets face it folks,
Iraq has been a clusterf%%%.Time to try to make something good out of it and to resume the REAL war on terror.
I’m here via Political Animal.
I don’t know where the “liberal” comes in. Here as well as in the “balance of the issues” section doesn’t really concern itself with such ideological issues. Intelligence, service in Vietnam, and flip-flopping aren’t “liberal” concerns, are they? Economic concerns are, but “liberal” means a lot more than that. And, the foreign affairs/allies matter is a lot more than three “old Europe” allies. But, again, a lot more to worry about.
Social issues. Truly respecting scientific analysis. Regulations. Open government. Respect for rule of law. Appointment of judges (the federal judiciary tilted left with Clinton; it will truly tilt right with a second term). And so on. All “liberal” matters.
But, apparently, the true concern is the “armed” part. I take Kevin Drum’s stance on how Bush falls in that dept., but the truly annoying thing is that I have to read an “Armed Liberal,” who clearly doesn’t care about the second half. A half that CLEARLY goes against Bush. And the first half, again cf. Kevin Drum, is not total gimmee.
So, how does an “Armed Liberal” vote? Or, rather, one who apparently thinks our civilization is desperately in danger so that anything else really doesn’t matter. It helps when much of this other stuff ISNT EVEN DISCUSSED, but still, clearly it really doesn’t matter.
Oh, and your choice clearly is far from shocking given your mentality. A mentality that no longer is truly liberal, so forget about that.
It’s an interesting mirror that we have going on here. A while ago, I criticized Charles Johnson for not policing his comments and creating a community that was based – I felt – largely in expressing vitriol and rage.
I’ve been hanging out in Kevin’s comments on my post and notice exactly the same thing. For the questionable racism of LGF (I say questionable because I believe it to be a spillover of confusion between Islam and Islamism), substitute classism and regionalism. A push, I’d say.
To visitors from Kevin’s site, a word or two; I’m not particularly intimidated by being called names, and our readers aren’t particularly impressed. This is a place where people argue – in the sense of constructing arguments and defending them. Some commenters are definitely doing that, and I’m thrilled. Some aren’t and will eventually get 86’ed. Not for disagreeing with me – even violently – but for substituting namecalling and slur for argument and debate. This isn’t ‘Crossfire’.
It’s my party, and you piss in the punchbowl at your own risk.
A.L.
You aren’t an “armed liberal” – you’re a brain-dead fatassed redneck with a gun. Why don’t you go kill an animal to prove what a hero you are, asshole?
Tom Cleaver
Vietnam Veteran and a *real* “armed liberal”
Greetings.
I’ve only visited your blog every now and then, but I have gotten the impression that you are “smarter than the average bear” as it were. I hope you will reconsider and vote for John Kerry.
As I see it, Senator Kerry has the right skills needed to combat terrorism, to drain the swam that President Bush has inadvertently been fertilising. Hundreds (if not thousands) of young Muslims are now itching to fight Americans. Despite the claims of fighting them there instead of here, most of the guerillas and insurgents wouldn’t have joined in the first place if we weren’t there to begin with.
Senator Kerry has shown in the past that he can kill to protect his country and comrades, that he has the tenacity to ferret out and fight financers of terror like BCCI, and that he has the tenacity to fight to the end. What I’ve seen of President Bush so far is far from inspiring.
The problem most people have with Senator Kerry is that his strategy in almost all things involves a period of assessment, choosing the perfect moment and then striking. This initial phase can be maddening, especially when he selectively reveals partial nuances to give an impression of wavering. I sometimes get the impression of an overeager army but a commander reining them in, telling them to hold their fire. As we are now seeing, he has saved his reserves for the final push, and it appears that it will bring him victory yet again.
Sorry for the rambling, but I do feel that John Kerry better supports the goals you support and has a much better chance of success than our current president has.
Tom Cleaver’s comment parallels an email he sent me; I’ll leave it up as a discussion point. Here’s the reply I emailed him:
It’s funny – I remember when liberals were tolerant and reasonable and conservatives were thugs. When did things reverse?
A.L.
It’s hard to make a right decision when it comes to elections. I would also go with Bush, I have heard so much crap about him that I am starting to believe nothing is true and it’s all a political issue. They say he was a drug addict and alcoholic but I don’t see any records whit him in any “Drug Rehab Center”:http://www.drugrehab.net/start.php. Let him do his job and then judge the results.