SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (383382)4/1/2003 10:13:02 AM
From: PROLIFE  Respond to of 769667
 
April 1, 2003

Why do Dems oppose war?

Bob Beckel

I have been a card-carrying liberal Democrat all my life, and proud of it. I've always believed that one of the great foundation blocks of liberalism is that we are committed to helping those who cannot help themselves. From Selma, Ala., to Capetown, South Africa, liberals have been at the forefront of the war against racism. From the picking fields of Florida, to support for Mothers of the Missing, liberals have waged war against the oppression of children.
For these reasons, I find it so baffling that so many of my fellow liberals oppose the war against, arguably, the most vicious dictator since Hitler. In case you missed it friends, the Sunday before the war began was the 10th anniversary of Saddam Hussein's nervegasing of 5,000 Iraqi civilians in Halabja. Have we forgotten the horrific pictures of distorted bodies in piles? Have we forgotten in that human tyre were the bodies of hundreds of little babies? If so, read the reports out of Basra of Saddam Hussein's secret security force putting guns to the heads of little children to force their fathers to fight, or reports of suspected coalition collaborators having their tongues cut out and left to bleed to death in public parks as a warning to others? Or reports after the last Gulf War of Hussein's thugs rounding up accused spies and forcing them to drink gas in front of their families and then lighting them on fire?
Since our just opposition to the war in Southeast Asia, we liberals have supported wars to liberate oppressed people from the Balkans to Haiti. Despite the conservative revisionism that Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War all by himself, we should remember that the spark of that fire came from Lech Walesa and the Solidarity Union supported financially by the U.S. labor movement with money and people.
I agree with my liberal friends that the so-called adults running this war have looked more like graduate students doing war gaming for their thesis. As for diplomacy, let's just say it could not have been handled in a more hamhanded way. The only positive was that maybe now the elites in this country will realize that the French are not our friends and have not been since we liberated their sorry butts in World War II.
But, there is no turning back now. I, for one, am not worried that this war will rip apart U.S.-European alliances. They will come back and if the French don't, all the better. I don"t believe the Arab world will rise up en masse against the United States and unleash a firestorm of new terrorist attacks. True, the Iraqi people have not yet embraced their liberation, but why should they? For 30 years, they have been brainwashed with hatred for the United States. That does not go away overnight. And let's remember that as they face foreign news cameras saying Saddam is loved, they have Saddam's thugs behind them with AK 47s.
Having had several painful discussions with some of my closest friends, many of whom I've worked with for 30 years, I come away with the crux of the problem with their argument against this war. They all agree that Saddam Hussein is evil, but believe that thousands of Iraqi civilians will be killed by our troops and bombs. I don't know how many civilians have already died or surely will in the weeks ahead, not to mention our own troops.
There is only one certainty in this whole miserable situation. If Hussein is left in power, thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians will be killed.
If Saddam Hussein's thugs will torture little children and then kill their parents right in front of them, with 200,000 U.S. and British troops occupying vast parts of his country, can you imagine what this evil man will do if we withdraw?
Backing down would be to sign the death warrants of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. That's not a signature this liberal wants anything to do with, and with respect to my fellow liberals, you shouldn't either.

• Bob Beckel was a deputy secretary of State in the Carter administration, national campaign manager for Walter Mondale and a political analyst and columnist. He is currently writing a book on politics.

washtimes.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (383382)4/1/2003 11:50:44 AM
From: Johannes Pilch  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Charles Sennott in the 10/6/96 Boston Globe described a raid in the Mekong Delta in which John Kerry is alleged to have participated. Sennott then makes a startling revelation about Kerry.

He said Kerry “just happens to have captured it all on film.

‘I’ll show you where they shot from. See? That’s the hole covered up with reeds,’ says Kerry, showing the films on a recent evening, his hand tightening on the remote control as he clicks the images down to slow motion.

‘This is just something that I improvised…The point was not to just take an ambush, but to go directly at them,’ adds Kerry, pointing to where he brought the boat ashore, and explaining how he returned later with a Super 8 millimeter hand-held movie camera to record highlights of the mission. ‘That’s me right there. One of my crew was filming all this.’

The films have the grainy quality of home movies. In their blend of the posed and the unexpected, they reveal something indelible about the man who shot them—the tall, thin, handsome Naval officer seen striding through the reeds in flak jacket and helmet, holding aloft the captured B-40 rocket. The young man so unconscious of risk in the heat of battle, yet so focused on his future ambitions that he would reenact the moment for film. It is as if he had cast himself in the sequel to the experience of his hero, John F. Kennedy, on the PT-109.”

Kerry is no hero. He is a fraud. Seek help. You need deprogramming.



To: American Spirit who wrote (383382)4/1/2003 12:03:22 PM
From: Johannes Pilch  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667
 
Kerry reminiscent of Gore, Clinton (12/04/2002)

It remains unproven that Michael Dukakis was created in a German lab in a quest to create the ideal bad presidential candidate. After all, the former Massachusetts governor would have been worse if, for example, he had eaten a live kitten during his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention.

But that's a quibble. Give the man his due. Roughly 15 years later, Democrats from Massachusetts still have to disavow Dukakis. "I am not Michael Dukakis, and Michael Dukakis is not me, and the first person who would tell you that is Michael Dukakis," Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry explained to the Boston Globe on Nov. 25.

And to be fair, that's true. Yes, Sen. Kerry is a Massachusetts liberal (who has voted 100 percent with Ted Kennedy in recent years). And, yes, Kerry is arrogant and condescending, also much like candidate Dukakis was. Yes, Dukakis believed he was the heir to John F. Kennedy. Kerry, too, is famously infatuated with Camelot. Kerry even signed his name "JFK" as a young man -his middle name is Forbes -and affected a Kennedyesque accent.

But there are important differences between Kerry and Dukakis. Kerry served with distinction in Vietnam. Kerry was born rich and married even richer. And Kerry has more important-looking hair.

So, while the comparison to Dukakis is unfair and overplayed, there's another comparison that deserves more attention. John Kerry looks an awful lot like Al Gore, with a dash of Bill Clinton thrown in for flavor.

Al Gore famously joined the Army -as an Army journalist -because it would help his father, the late Senator Albert Gore Sr., who was in a tight re-election campaign and because Gore Jr. was being groomed for political office. Bill Clinton -another man deeply enraptured by the Camelot myth -didn't serve in Vietnam, but he always tried to claim that wasn't by choice. And when anguishing over whether or not he should comply with the draft, he explained to a friend that while he "loathed" the military he was desperate to "maintain my political viability within the system."

John Kerry not only went to Vietnam but he served with distinction. But, for him as well, presidential ambition was always part of the equation. While in Vietnam, for example, he filmed his adventures. "John was thinking Camelot when he shot that film, absolutely," a friend later explained to the Boston Globe. Clinton was lucky. He got that priceless footage of himself shaking hands with JFK simply by joining Boy's Nation.

When Kerry returned from Vietnam he became an anti-war activist, famously "returning" medals to the U.S. government by throwing them on the steps of Capitol Hill for a photo-op. It was later revealed that they were not in fact his own medals, which he kept safely at home.

Kerry has always been a liberal, unlike Gore and Clinton who were willing to change their positions based upon the prevailing political climate. Of course, they were politicians from increasingly conservative Southern states, while Kerry didn't need to change his spots in Massachusetts, the State that Time Forgot. Nevertheless, Kerry, like Gore and Clinton, is a man governed by ambition, and that makes him inclined to say whatever is necessary.

Consider, for example, Kerry's position on the death penalty. When Kerry announced he would be forming a presidential exploratory committee on "Meet the Press" last Sunday, he explained, "I don't think it is right to have a criminal justice system that kills innocent people." OK. Fair enough. But who, exactly, is in favor of killing innocent people?

More to the point, he said, "I'm opposed to the death penalty in the criminal justice system because I think it's applied unfairly … and because I'm for a worse punishment. I think it is worse to take somebody and put them in a small cell for the rest of their life." He continued, "I've seen people die and I know what it's like to almost die. I don't think that -you know, dying is scary for a while, but in the end, the punishment is gone. When you're alive and you're deprived of your freedom each day … that is tough, my friend."

This is very weird. Kerry's position isn't that state-sanctioned killing is wrong or cruel. Rather, Kerry holds that capital punishment is wrong because it's not cruel enough. Of course, this flies in the face of how criminal defendants feel, who often plead guilty just to be spared the death penalty. But Kerry says he favors the death penalty for terrorists, which sounds popular but also puts him in the position of favoring mercy for terrorists he would deny to Americans.

This sort of effort to get credit for a popular position while actually holding an unpopular one is classic Clintonism, and Kerry's eagerness to say something that he knows makes no sense is quintessential Gore. And, in that sense, I'd prefer Dukakis. He may have been a loser, but at least he was honest about it.

townhall.com