|
Sunday, October 3, 2004
Previous topic
|
Next topic
|
|
 Sunday, October 3, 2004
started 10/3/2004; 1:35:15 PM - last post 10/4/2004; 1:58:15 PM
|
|
Doc Searls - Sunday, October 3, 2004 
10/3/2004; 5:35:15 PM (reads: 3649, responses: 1)
|
|
Rembember, and recall 
| | Friends, I return to where I started: We're in trouble in Iraq. We have to immediately get the Democratic and Republican politics out of this policy and start honestly reassessing what is the maximum we can still achieve there and what every American is going to have to do to make it happen. If we do not, we'll end up not only with a fractured Iraq, but with a fractured America, at war with itself and isolated from the world. |
| | I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. America is already deeply fractured -- just look at the polls, or talk to your neighbors; at war with itself -- look at how insanely close this election is likely to be; and isolated from the world. The nation's leaders gave Bush bipartisanship in the days after 9/11, and again in the leadup to the Iraq war, and Bush abused and insulted those foolish enough to think he is actually the "uniter" he once claimed to be. |
| | There are just about 30 days to the presidential election. Politics cannot, will not, should not stop at such a moment. Anyone who believes all the points Friedman makes in his column has no choice but to demand that Bush be booted out of office. |
| | Many Americans are ready to vote for Bush because they think it's a bad idea to "change horses in the middle of stream." |
| | But this horse is talking bubbles. And this isn't a stream. It's a flood. When John Kerry says "help is on the way," he may not be right, but he can't be more wrong than Bush. |
| | My sister, a retired Navy commander with a Master's from the Navy War College, nailed it back when Howard Dean, alone among the Democrats, had the vision and the balls to call this war a mistake, and appealed to voters to "take back" the country from the mandate-less minority that took it over after Bush was (in only the most narrow sense of the term) elected. |
| | She said this presidential election was something new: something like what recently elevated Arnold Schwartzenegger to governor in California. She said this was a "recall." |
| | It's time to recall George W. Bush. |
| | The Commander in Chief isn't unaccountable. He isn't an emperor, though his metaphorical clothes are finally starting to fall off. He reports to the American people. We must terminate his command. The only way to do that is by electing John Kerry in November. |
| | And I say this as somebody who has voted Libertarian for the past several elections, and who has carefully avoided getting caught up in, and taking sides, in political arguments. |
| | But I also say this as somebody who rembembers the Vietnam war. The Iraq war is different in many ways, but in a few terribly important ways it is creepily similar. |
| | What we did by going to war in Iraq, and by the way we did it, shows that this administration learned approximately nothing from our failures in Vietnam. John Kerry did. His opponents in this election seek to smear him for his opposition to the Vietnam war, but he was on the right side of that issue, and he's on the right side of the same issue today. |
| | War is a terribly complicated subject. But choices about commanders in chief are not, when an election is at hand. This country needs to be relieved of George W. Bush's command. Now is the time. It will help us do that if we remember the lessons we were taught thirty years ago. |
| | And four years from now may be way too late. |
discuss
|
|
Donald W. Larson - Re: Sunday, October 3, 2004
10/4/2004; 5:58:15 PM (reads: 431, responses: 0)
|
|
|
"It will help us do that if we remember the lessons we were taught thirty years ago."
I lived through the American Vietnam War Era, what lesson was there about flip-flopping that John Kerry incorporates? I don't recall flip-flopping as even being a subject of the Vietnam War back then.
I don't believe we are using enough force to vanquish our enemies. We certainly haven't taken the fight to Iran and Syria where the real supporters of terrorism are. We fight and kill the enemy in great numbers in Iraq and we will continue to do so. We fight the enemy on some of their soil, but not on enough of their soil.
Kerry will not fight the terrorists but appease them. He doesn't how to do, "hard work."
Taking Kerry at His Word
Some people write on their blogs that if President Bush wins, anything that happens to America is what we deserve. Maybe so. But anything we dish back out is what the rest of the world deserves. I think we already proved that after 9/11.
John Kerry is probably a very nice man, a good American as I might describe him. I disagree with his political party and his views about current American policy.
From the linked article, here's an example of wimpyness that he exudes:
AS JOHN KERRY stepped down from his campaign plane at Youngstown airport in Ohio en route to a rally Sunday, an enterprising reporter shouted out an excellent question.
"What's a "global test," Senator?" he called. The response, delivered with a winning smile, was the trademark Kerry thumbs up; the big digit protruding ever so slightly above the clenched fist. But, for what it said about his willingness to answer the question, it might just as well have been a raised middle finger. With a breezy wave, the newly pumped-up senator was on his way.
The man just can't admit he's made a mistake by asking Americans to trust the judgment of the outside world when it comes to American security. If he had a plan that didn't rely upon what the outside world thinks, he might have broader American support. But he thinks the French and Germans know better for America than we do. Only Americans know what's best for America.
Here's another excerpt from the linked article:
Then there is the now familiar assertion that Kerry will persuade U.S. allies to alleviate America's burden in Iraq. From his performance in the debate, and subsequent remarks on the campaign trail, it is clear now that Kerry's principal goal in Iraq is getting the United States out as quickly as possible. If this means making some empty promises about what other countries might be persuaded to do, then so be it.
What all this adds up to is not the "mixed messages" Bush warned about in the debate. It is a signal of unusual clarity: deeply dovish, deeply skeptical about the exercise of U.S. power, deeply trusting of the French and German approach to the proper running of world affairs, deeply damaging to U.S. global leadership.
Some people write on their blogs that if John Kerry wins, any "relief" the rest of the world receives is what they deserve. Maybe so. But anything we receive in return is what we deserve. I think we already proved that before 9/11.
Don
discuss
|
|
|
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
