Sunday, February 22, 2004
Vietnam -- Revised!!
I was flipping through stations and overheard some lady on a news/right wing? talk show commenting about Kerry's testimony about the Vietnam war. She said all the raping and atrocious behavior on the part of US GI's didn't happen. Uhm... that's like saying the Holocaust never happened. (Wonder if she heard about a thing called the My Lai Massacre?)
Sorry lady, it's an ugly fact, backed up by testimony of veterans. War is not a nice thing. In fact, it's a horrible thing. If I was the radio host and I heard the lady say that, I'd recommend she take a little time, go to her public library, and do some research about Vietnam and the war, maybe even talk to some veterans.
See, she'd find the war was bad. The US may have had good intentions and "moral clarity" (to use a Hannity-ism) about Vietnam, but we were doomed from the get go. It was a political quagmire before it became a military quagmire. It was a mistake, but the US was too proud to back out, and back away. Really, I can't do the history of Vietnam justice in a quick and simple blog. Go check books out at the library.
Terrible, inhuman things happen in war. It's why you don't see people that have fought in one eager to get into another one, and if the motivation is questionable, then you'll get soldiers and citizens in protest.
Currently, Iraq has a lot of similarity between the politics and ego of the US in Vietnam.
Here's a couple of book suggestions about Vietnam, (Mark Baker's "Nam", and "A People's History of the Vietnam War," by Johnathan Neale. Plus there are tons of websites about Vietnam and by/for Vietnam veterans.)
I was flipping through stations and overheard some lady on a news/right wing? talk show commenting about Kerry's testimony about the Vietnam war. She said all the raping and atrocious behavior on the part of US GI's didn't happen. Uhm... that's like saying the Holocaust never happened. (Wonder if she heard about a thing called the My Lai Massacre?)
Sorry lady, it's an ugly fact, backed up by testimony of veterans. War is not a nice thing. In fact, it's a horrible thing. If I was the radio host and I heard the lady say that, I'd recommend she take a little time, go to her public library, and do some research about Vietnam and the war, maybe even talk to some veterans.
See, she'd find the war was bad. The US may have had good intentions and "moral clarity" (to use a Hannity-ism) about Vietnam, but we were doomed from the get go. It was a political quagmire before it became a military quagmire. It was a mistake, but the US was too proud to back out, and back away. Really, I can't do the history of Vietnam justice in a quick and simple blog. Go check books out at the library.
Terrible, inhuman things happen in war. It's why you don't see people that have fought in one eager to get into another one, and if the motivation is questionable, then you'll get soldiers and citizens in protest.
Currently, Iraq has a lot of similarity between the politics and ego of the US in Vietnam.
Here's a couple of book suggestions about Vietnam, (Mark Baker's "Nam", and "A People's History of the Vietnam War," by Johnathan Neale. Plus there are tons of websites about Vietnam and by/for Vietnam veterans.)
Why are Democrats, liberals, and others angry with Bush?
(A response to a confused journalist here.)
1) He was not elected president.
2) Weapons of mass destruction
3) tax cuts that favor the rich, but seem to miss the poor and working class
4) weapons of mass destruction related programs
5) allegations of connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq proved false
6) His promotion of "No Child Left Behind", but underfunding it
7) His budget, and the tax cuts for the rich, pretty much through the budget into the red, now the federal deficit is $7 trillion.
8) the Patriot Act (do we really need to scrap the Constitution to catch terrorists?)
9) not going after Saudi Arabia, when they supported the extreme Muslims that created Al Qaeda
10) His promotion of school vouchers, show a disdain and lack of concern for public education and teacher unions.
11) Cheney and Halliburtion
12) Ken Lay and Enron
13) the guy used his daddy's help to skip out on Vietnam, and now proclaims to be a war president
14) He really hates the seperation of church and state guaranteed in the Constitution
15) Karl Rove
16) his desire to let oil companies drill in the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve
17) His determination to keep his head buried in the sand about global warming
18) His contempt for labor, and his love of corporate America
The list can go on and on... I'd suggest doing a little homework and looking at some websites that Democrats and liberals frequent to understand why they're miffed. (Check out my links on the right of this page, for starters.)
(A response to a confused journalist here.)
1) He was not elected president.
2) Weapons of mass destruction
3) tax cuts that favor the rich, but seem to miss the poor and working class
4) weapons of mass destruction related programs
5) allegations of connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq proved false
6) His promotion of "No Child Left Behind", but underfunding it
7) His budget, and the tax cuts for the rich, pretty much through the budget into the red, now the federal deficit is $7 trillion.
8) the Patriot Act (do we really need to scrap the Constitution to catch terrorists?)
9) not going after Saudi Arabia, when they supported the extreme Muslims that created Al Qaeda
10) His promotion of school vouchers, show a disdain and lack of concern for public education and teacher unions.
11) Cheney and Halliburtion
12) Ken Lay and Enron
13) the guy used his daddy's help to skip out on Vietnam, and now proclaims to be a war president
14) He really hates the seperation of church and state guaranteed in the Constitution
15) Karl Rove
16) his desire to let oil companies drill in the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve
17) His determination to keep his head buried in the sand about global warming
18) His contempt for labor, and his love of corporate America
The list can go on and on... I'd suggest doing a little homework and looking at some websites that Democrats and liberals frequent to understand why they're miffed. (Check out my links on the right of this page, for starters.)
Friday, February 06, 2004
Blame it on Clinton
I was listening to a talk show on the way home from work, some local Chicago guys on 105.9. They were talking about the intelligence being bad that led to the Iraq War. A caller phoned in and said that the intelligence that was gathered was Clinton's intelligence. (Someone listening to too much Limbaugh and/or Hannity, I'd gather.)
On the surface that may sound like a slam on the Clinton administration, but with a little consideration it shows a bigger problem. If Clinton was such a doof, and couldn't find his butt with both hands tied behind his back, then wouldn't the receivers of Clinton's intelligence have questioned its validity? Just a thought, but let's experiment with it.
Lets take the decision making process here. Buying a Car vs. Going to War. If you were going to buy a car, you'd do research, right? Now, you'd probably check out cars on reliable information from those that own and drive a particular car you want. Say you want one of those hybrid cars. If you really, really wanted one you may not care too much about the info regardless of its source. If you really, really, really wanted one, you may forgo even bad information to purchase one.
Now, I'd hope that going to war would not be something any president would be eager to do, and if necessary for defensive purposes. American history is filled with legitimate reasons for war, and questionable reasons for war. Justifiable wars would be the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II. Questionable wars would be the Mexican American War (blatant imperialism), the War of 1812 (stupid warhawks), the Spanish-American War (the press wanted a war, and Americans wanted Cuba), Vietnam (political quagmire that ulitmately was very unecessary.), and now the Iraq War.
Ultimately, war is evil, destructive, murderous, and extremely wasteful. Now, its also very profitable for some, but its very costly for others. (Big corporations like Haliburton make a killing for example, while the American citizenry loses its brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers to the political war machine.) War is a socially complex thing. Its usually used by weak leaders to justify their strengths while hiding their weaknesses.
So, let's say most intelligent and reasonable people understand that war should be avoided at all costs if possible. We could agree that most religious groups advocate peace, understanding, patience and forgiveness. Wouldn't it seem feasible that if a president was reluctant to go to war, he'd want the best intelligence he could get before making a decision to go to war? Now, say a president wants to defend the country from an imminent threat, certainly it could seem feasible to rally the American people behind solid intelligence, but let's look at what we have now.
Was there any time when Bush seemed reluctant to go to war? Did he have patience while gathering enough intelligence to promote a case for war? Did he attempt to solve the problems with Iraq via diplomatic measures and with the aid and assistance of our friends and allies? Uhm... well... no.
He practically pounded his shoe on a podium about weapons of mass destruction and the imminent threat Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed. In his bloodthirsty eagerness to go to war, Bush pissed away international and domestic support to fight terrorism. Nobody doubted the US would win a war with Iraq. Nobody said that Hussein was not deserving of punishment, or that he needed to be removed.
The thing is, Iraq was a paper tiger. Since the Gulf War, Saddam and Iraq have been virtually powerless. The US's swift victory proved how weak Iraq was. Bush used the greatest, most powerful military in human history to knock over the regime of a weak dictatorship so that he could look tough and powerful.
Bush and his administration beat the drum about the emerging threat and nearly imminent danger the US was in because Saddam and Iraq were on the verge of having "the bomb." Go back to the 2003 State of the Union address. Bush lists the amounts of chemical and biological weapons Iraq possessed, he talked about yellow cake uranium. Granted they may not have used the word "imminent" but he did utilize language that made the implication that if the US did not act, we could see New York, Washington DC, or Main Street, USA get vaporized in a mushroom cloud launched from Baghdad.
Now, we get backpedalling. We get the 2004 State of the Union address with "weapons of mass destruction related programs." Well, it doesn't matter if the intelligence was bad, because we got rid of Saddam and Iraq is free. Yes, that is good that Saddam is gone, but I'm not sure about the fate of the Iraqi people just yet. I'm also not sure that Americans will be taken credibly as long as Bush remains president. OK, sure the religious right, and conservatives love the guy for the image he projects. (Whatever that is.) I'd say even the middle of the road, moderate, centrists in the US are starting to question the validity of the Bush presidency.
"Weapons of mass destruction related programs..." A threat on sheets of paper were the reason for going to war? (From what I've read, they were like scribbles on notebook paper and napkins.)
The US has plans for building anti-missile laser weapons in space. That's not the same thing as possessing them. It's also not the same as building such things. Right now, it could take years and hundreds of billions of dollars, maybe trillions of dollars to build.
Bush and his adminstration lied to the American people about the reason for going to war with Iraq. He abused his position as president to wage a war on Iraq, that had little justification. Bill Clinton lied about getting sexual favors from Monica Lewinsky. He got impeached and lost all credibility. If the Regressive Republicans would have stopped their witch hunt against Clinton, and gotten on the track of running the government rather than trying to run Slick Willy out of town, things might be different today.
I can understand hatred of Clinton. He lied. He violated the public trust. He had his faults, but when history looks back in 20-30 years and further on, they're realize he was not a bad president overall. When history looks back on Bush, I'm not so certain he'll be judged very well. Bad foreign policy and bad fiscal policy will be his legacies.
Hopefully, he'll be a one-term president.
Stupid Boobs
The media circus about Janet Jackson's boob is insane. The fact that the FCC is going to give CBS a government rectal exam is even worse. OK, OK... I know you may have been watching the game with your kid. It was a boob. It was a stupid stunt. Its not worth anyone getting worked up over. Stop making a mountain out of a mammary gland, already!!
I was listening to a talk show on the way home from work, some local Chicago guys on 105.9. They were talking about the intelligence being bad that led to the Iraq War. A caller phoned in and said that the intelligence that was gathered was Clinton's intelligence. (Someone listening to too much Limbaugh and/or Hannity, I'd gather.)
On the surface that may sound like a slam on the Clinton administration, but with a little consideration it shows a bigger problem. If Clinton was such a doof, and couldn't find his butt with both hands tied behind his back, then wouldn't the receivers of Clinton's intelligence have questioned its validity? Just a thought, but let's experiment with it.
Lets take the decision making process here. Buying a Car vs. Going to War. If you were going to buy a car, you'd do research, right? Now, you'd probably check out cars on reliable information from those that own and drive a particular car you want. Say you want one of those hybrid cars. If you really, really wanted one you may not care too much about the info regardless of its source. If you really, really, really wanted one, you may forgo even bad information to purchase one.
Now, I'd hope that going to war would not be something any president would be eager to do, and if necessary for defensive purposes. American history is filled with legitimate reasons for war, and questionable reasons for war. Justifiable wars would be the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II. Questionable wars would be the Mexican American War (blatant imperialism), the War of 1812 (stupid warhawks), the Spanish-American War (the press wanted a war, and Americans wanted Cuba), Vietnam (political quagmire that ulitmately was very unecessary.), and now the Iraq War.
Ultimately, war is evil, destructive, murderous, and extremely wasteful. Now, its also very profitable for some, but its very costly for others. (Big corporations like Haliburton make a killing for example, while the American citizenry loses its brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers to the political war machine.) War is a socially complex thing. Its usually used by weak leaders to justify their strengths while hiding their weaknesses.
So, let's say most intelligent and reasonable people understand that war should be avoided at all costs if possible. We could agree that most religious groups advocate peace, understanding, patience and forgiveness. Wouldn't it seem feasible that if a president was reluctant to go to war, he'd want the best intelligence he could get before making a decision to go to war? Now, say a president wants to defend the country from an imminent threat, certainly it could seem feasible to rally the American people behind solid intelligence, but let's look at what we have now.
Was there any time when Bush seemed reluctant to go to war? Did he have patience while gathering enough intelligence to promote a case for war? Did he attempt to solve the problems with Iraq via diplomatic measures and with the aid and assistance of our friends and allies? Uhm... well... no.
He practically pounded his shoe on a podium about weapons of mass destruction and the imminent threat Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed. In his bloodthirsty eagerness to go to war, Bush pissed away international and domestic support to fight terrorism. Nobody doubted the US would win a war with Iraq. Nobody said that Hussein was not deserving of punishment, or that he needed to be removed.
The thing is, Iraq was a paper tiger. Since the Gulf War, Saddam and Iraq have been virtually powerless. The US's swift victory proved how weak Iraq was. Bush used the greatest, most powerful military in human history to knock over the regime of a weak dictatorship so that he could look tough and powerful.
Bush and his administration beat the drum about the emerging threat and nearly imminent danger the US was in because Saddam and Iraq were on the verge of having "the bomb." Go back to the 2003 State of the Union address. Bush lists the amounts of chemical and biological weapons Iraq possessed, he talked about yellow cake uranium. Granted they may not have used the word "imminent" but he did utilize language that made the implication that if the US did not act, we could see New York, Washington DC, or Main Street, USA get vaporized in a mushroom cloud launched from Baghdad.
Now, we get backpedalling. We get the 2004 State of the Union address with "weapons of mass destruction related programs." Well, it doesn't matter if the intelligence was bad, because we got rid of Saddam and Iraq is free. Yes, that is good that Saddam is gone, but I'm not sure about the fate of the Iraqi people just yet. I'm also not sure that Americans will be taken credibly as long as Bush remains president. OK, sure the religious right, and conservatives love the guy for the image he projects. (Whatever that is.) I'd say even the middle of the road, moderate, centrists in the US are starting to question the validity of the Bush presidency.
"Weapons of mass destruction related programs..." A threat on sheets of paper were the reason for going to war? (From what I've read, they were like scribbles on notebook paper and napkins.)
The US has plans for building anti-missile laser weapons in space. That's not the same thing as possessing them. It's also not the same as building such things. Right now, it could take years and hundreds of billions of dollars, maybe trillions of dollars to build.
Bush and his adminstration lied to the American people about the reason for going to war with Iraq. He abused his position as president to wage a war on Iraq, that had little justification. Bill Clinton lied about getting sexual favors from Monica Lewinsky. He got impeached and lost all credibility. If the Regressive Republicans would have stopped their witch hunt against Clinton, and gotten on the track of running the government rather than trying to run Slick Willy out of town, things might be different today.
I can understand hatred of Clinton. He lied. He violated the public trust. He had his faults, but when history looks back in 20-30 years and further on, they're realize he was not a bad president overall. When history looks back on Bush, I'm not so certain he'll be judged very well. Bad foreign policy and bad fiscal policy will be his legacies.
Hopefully, he'll be a one-term president.
Stupid Boobs
The media circus about Janet Jackson's boob is insane. The fact that the FCC is going to give CBS a government rectal exam is even worse. OK, OK... I know you may have been watching the game with your kid. It was a boob. It was a stupid stunt. Its not worth anyone getting worked up over. Stop making a mountain out of a mammary gland, already!!
