Not so swift
I'm a little amazed lately at how Republicans and undecided voters don't really seem to be able to add 2+2.
First, the swift boat debacle. It goes without saying that this is a despicable bit of mudslinging, but I finally saw one of the ads that showed some of Kerry's criticisms to congress of the American military in Vietnam. At every quote they put up on the screen, I thought, "What's wrong with this?" What's wrong with pointing out that the military behaved in ways that they shouldn't in Vietnam? Why should he stay quiet about it? Don't we expect our military to be decent citizens and not terrorize the innocent civilians of the country that they're occupying? Kerry was a whistle-blower. I don't have a problem with anything he said.
Then there's the fact that, in every poll I've seen, the public says that they trust Bush more on the war on terror, but don't trust him on Iraq. How are these two things not related?! People trust him on the war on terror even though he pulled troops out of Afghanistan before capturing Osama Bin Laden (which he still hasn't done), before completely stopping Al Queda, and then occupies a Muslim country that had no ties to Al Queda and was not immediate threat the the US, and turns it into a place where Muslim fundamentalism is now free to run rampant. How is that helping the war on terror?
Ladies and gentlemen...I implore you.
3 comments:
Here are the old comments for this one:
Re. the Swift Boat debacle and Kerry's testimony of atrocities taking place in Vietnam...why are the Repubs too thick to not see obvious parallels b/t that and the Abu Ghirab scandal? They are absolutely incapable of any nuance, I think. If it's possible to call out the deplorable conduct of some of our soldiers in the Iraqi prison, yet hold steadfast to the virtues of our aims and goals in planting the seeds of democracy in the middle east, why is it that Kerry can't do the same in regards to the conduct of *some* of our soliders back then, as well as our aims? (I'm temporarily suspending my belief that the conduct at Abu Ghirab wasn't sanctioned by the military's top brass here, of course. That's another story...)
Xtian
The swift boat ads really bother me, but not as much as these GOP idiots wearing band-aids with little purple hearts on them at their convention. I thought this was supposed to be the ultra-patriotic party that supports the troops? And here they are openly mocking a man who despite his priveleged status volunteered for service in Vietnam? It really sickens me.
Meanwhile, their own candidate without question used his family connections to get out of serving in Vietnam. Taxpayers spent thousands of dollars on his flight training only to see it wasted when he couldn't be bothered to report for a physical.
I don't blame anybody - Bush/Cheney included - for not wanting to go fight in Vietnam. But mocking somebody who did go is terrible. All those people should be ashamed.
Rant ends here.
jason
No! Rant away, Jason. Excellent points, the both of you.
I keep feeling like it's one of those, "You just have to laugh" moments, but it's really disgusting. The double standards are phenomenal. The stupidity that is being excused it unexcusable.
We'll see what happens.
Reid
Agreed - disgusting really. I wonder how ballistic the Republicans would have gone had Clinton and/or his people had railed on Bob Dole for *only earning a Purple Heart after he blew himself up with a grenade* (his admission). Of course, no one did, because that would have been disgusting and inexcusable - not to mention the Democrats would never have gotten away with attacking someone's military service (because, you know, Democrats are pussies when it come to war - oh, except Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt, Carter, etc...).
But as the Republicans and swift-boaters have proved - everything is fair game. Anything to win I guess. I'm about to just give up and tune out to it all - who needs this crap anyhow? I mean, if people are so stupid that they really feel comfortable voting for this idiot president and his idiot policies for such idiotic reasons as those ads try to spin, then so be it - I consider all hope to be lost then.
And here's my conspiracy side: YOU KNOW they had this planned for months and months even before Kerry was a sure thing to be nominated - I'm sure they had something for everyone - Dean, Clark, Edwards, whoever. YOU JUST KNOW IT! ARRRRGH!
doug
And another thing: take my neighbor. Nice person I guess - but totally representative of the kind of thinking that will probably win Bush another presidency: her sole argument for leaning towards voting for Bush: "he's a strong leader". And when Cory said, "uh, even though he made the wrong decisions when it came to war?" (my neighbor admitted that she is now against the war - after the fact of course). Response by neighbor: "yeah, but he held onto his convictions and made a decision - I just don't see John Kerry doing that...he's a flip-flopper" WHAT!? How do you win against that type of thinking? It's freaking impossible. Sorry, just had to vent...thanks for the forum Reid!
doug
Doug, just use the argument on the neighbor that I've heard a number of people use: what's wrong with "flip-flopping"? Don't you want your president to reflect the opinions of the country? If the majority of the country is in favor of going to war in Iraq (which, sadly, they were), is it really that awful that a senator chose to vote on behalf of the opinions of his constituents? Do you really want someone who'll just plow through with his own opinions regardless of what the country thinks and regardless of whether it'll alienate half of our allies?
Sad days.
Reid
Oh god, I HATE the stupid flip flopper thing. Its just people ape'ing the GOP talking points pounded into their heads by FOX. Nobody even knows what they mean when they say it.
Al Franken did a funny faux commercial today about Bush as a flip flopper. (There's a ton of stuff that Bush was for or against but then changed his mind.) I wish Kerry/Edwards would use that for real. Not only was it hilarious, but all true.
Doug, I think you're right about tuning everything out for a bit. I sort of knew I needed to do that during this convention week. But now I think I really need to tune out until the debates or I'll go insane.
jason
I'm sure there are plenty of leftie web sites out there that have deconstructed Bush as "flip flopper"...but let us not forget: Establishing a Department of Homeland Security (first against, then for), Establishing the 9/11 Commission (first against, then for), Having Condi Rice testify at said 9/11 Commission (first against, then for). Just for starters.
And here's what I don't get about their talking points...how can you be a flip-flopper AND the Senate's most liberal voting member? Don't they kinda work at odds...
I know that conventions are rhetoric-filled dog and pony shows, but the stuff coming out of this convention is unbelievable. Total head in the sand M.O. The 9/11 Commission finds no link between Iraq and Al Queda and yet the notion that Iraq might not be an appropriate target for a war agaisnt terrorism is not acknowledged in any way. Listening to the speakers there, you would never even know that there had been a 9/11 Commission. And this is from the party holding their convention in NYC to obstentially remember the victims of 9/11. Shameful.
Please save me Stephen Colbert and Rob Cordroy. You're my only hope for sanity.
Susan
Kerry has the most god awful campaign strategists. If he wants to get the undecided votes, why isn't he bringing up W's campaign promises from 2000? How many times in the debates did he say the purposed of the military is to "fight and win wars" and NOT peace-keep? Replay that quote and then show US troops being kept in Iraq post-handover, essentially in what is now a peace-keeping mission. Replay his quotes on reducing the size of the federal government, then mention how much bigger he made it with the DHS restructuring. Sure 9/11 added complexity to these issues, but did it warrant doing the opposite of nearly everything he promised?
"Flip-flopping" in itself isn't going to be a big influence on moderates. Votes in Congress are as much about getting yourself noticed as about actual ideals...look at Zell. But *promising* to do one thing and then doing the opposite is a lot different. Clinton understood this and used the "No New Taxes" thing against 41. Kerry's too dense to get it though.
Anyway, if this campaign continues to be all about Iraq, Bush will win. Barring any further attacks on US soil. Realistically, the next Pres has little choice in how to conduct the affairs in Iraq/Afghanistan going forward. The course is pretty well set at this point, so Kerry doesn't bring anything new to the table. He needs to focus on other issues. I thought the last 5 minutes of his convention speech where he talked about advancing science and technology were brilliant...the only worthwhile part of an otherwise mundane speech. We can't put our lives on hold while we deal with Iraq. Focus on something more tangible to everyday life.
Unless it's John Edwards ranting about repealing NAFTA. If your best idea is to reverse one of the key accomplishments of a former President from your own party, then you're not going to win me over.
Scott
I don't see why Kerry has to concede that Bush wins on Iraq. There are SO many things to attack Bush on as being a miserable failure:
1) Totally disregarding the advice of the military as to the number of troops needed to be successful.
2) Changing the reason for being in Iraq every six weeks: WMD, WMD related programs, Saddam is really bad, den of freedom haters, etc;
3) Jay Garner. Paul Bremer.
4) 1000+ troops killed. 7000 troops wounded.
5) Creating a huge mess with Al Sadr.
6) Going in with no exit plan and little international support.
7) Completely overextending our military for a war we didn't need to fight.
etc; etc;
What in the world has Bush done in Iraq that has been so successful aside from blow some stuff up? Kerry needs to call him out on this stuff.
jason
I've started having nightmares about the lack of challenge. The other night I sat straight up in bed and said, "Why isn't Kerry being proactive about this? Time is running out!" Then I went back to sleep.
sarah
I would say that's insane, Sarah. But this weekend I had a dream that my little Kennedy - who doesn't talk or even crawl yet - accidentally voted for Bush. She was trying to explain to me that she didn't know any better.
jason
It's not that Kerry can't criticize how Bush has handled Iraq, he certainly can. But that doesn't change anything going forward. Mistakes or not, whoever wins the election inherits the Iraq situation as is. My point was that if Kerry wins, what can he do that's going to drastically change the day-to-day operations? Unless he immediately withdraws all our troops and washes his hands of the issue (which he won't), he's stuck muddling through it just as Bush is. There's not a lot of debate between the candidates over how to handle Iraq from now on. Kerry's talking points on Iraq are all "I wouldn't have done that" rather than "These are the changes I plan to make". It's fine for him to criticize what's already been done, to distinguish his viewpoint from Bush's...but if that's his whole focus, I think it's a bad strategy. If I ran his campaign I'd have the majority of his focus be on issues other than Iraq where he can actually offer voters a choice in direction: elect me, this happens; elect him, that happens.
Personally, I'm still not convinced that Kerry or Gore would have really acted substantially different when it comes to Bush's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. They would have received the same intelligence, the military advisors (outside of the cabinet) would have made the same recommendations, and public opinion wouldn't have been any different. I think they'd wind up making a lot of the same mistakes. Or mistakes of the same degree (not unilateral enough instead of too unilateral). It's too easy to look back with hindsight and say what you would have done differently. And realistically it doesn't matter. I want to know how things (everyday life, the Iraq situation, whatever) will be made better if I vote for Kerry. I'm still waiting for him to tell me. If he doesn't, then I'm left thinking that 1) economic growth almost always happens during a 2nd term adminstration, but rarely during a 1st term, and 2) reelection means we get two brand new candidates in 4 years. It's not the ideal way to make the decision, but we're not dealing with ideal choices.
Scott
Bringing up what should have been done in Iraq is valid. I'm not sure how you can really discount what Richard Clark said about Bush wanting to go immediately into Iraq after 9/11 (though a lot of people seem to have forgotten about Clark's criticism). Bush knew that, because of 9/11, he could get the country's (and therefore, congress) support on just about any military action if it was done in the name of stopping terrorism.
Afghanistan was totally different. We had the world's support and most everyone in the country except pacifists supported it. Then Bush screwed it up by insisting that we go into Iraq. Would Gore or Kerry have done any different? There's absolutely no way of knowing. But we do know that Bush did it, in spite of losing tons of important international support, in spite of horrible evidence, and in spite of plenty of signs that it would be the mess that it is.
Scott, you're asking the question that Republicans seem to always want to know: how is (insert Democrat) going to make my life different? It's not. But the President does steer the country in important directions. That's what we're voting for. Voting for Bush doesn't mean that we'll all immediately lose every civil right we have, and voting for Kerry doesn't mean we'll all be taxed into poverty.
Reid
Post a Comment