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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: michael97123 who wrote (148625)10/22/2004 10:28:50 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
A FORMER REPUBLICAN SENATOR FOR KERRY

__________________________________

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

'Frightened to death' of Bush

I shall cast my vote for John Kerry come Nov 2.

I have been, and will continue to be, a Republican. But when we as a party send the wrong person to the White House, then it is our responsibility to send him home if our nation suffers as a result of his actions. I fall in the category of good conservative thinkers, like George F. Will, for instance, who wrote: "This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and having thought, to have second thoughts."

I say, well done George Will, or, even better, from the mouth of the numero uno of conservatives, William F. Buckley Jr.: "If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."

First, let's talk about George Bush's moral standards.

In 2000, to defeat Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. — a man who was shot down in Vietnam and imprisoned for over five years — they used Carl Rove's "East Texas special." They started the rumor that he was gay, saying he had spent too much time in the Hanoi Hilton. They said he was crazy. They said his wife was on drugs. Then, to top it off, they spread pictures of his adopted daughter, who was born in Bangladesh and thus dark skinned, to the sons and daughters of the Confederacy in rural South Carolina.

To show he was not just picking on Republicans, he went after Sen. Max Cleland from Georgia, a Democrat seeking re-election. Bush henchmen said he wasn't patriotic because Cleland did not agree 100 percent on how to handle homeland security. They published his picture along with Cuba's Castro, questioning Cleland's patriotism and commitment to America's security. Never mind that his Republican challenger was a Vietnam deferment case and Cleland, who had served in Vietnam, came home in a wheel chair having lost three limbs fighting for his country. Anyone who wants to win an election and control of the legislative body that badly has no moral character at all.

We know his father got him in the Texas Air National Guard so he would not have to go to Vietnam. The religious right can have him with those moral standards. We also have Vice President Dick Cheney, who deferred his way out of Vietnam because, as he says, he "had more important things to do."

I have just turned 78. During my lifetime, we have sent 31,377,741 Americans to war, not including whatever will be the final figures for the Iraq fiasco. Of those, 502,722 died and 928,980 came home without legs, arms or what have you.

Those wars were to defend freedom throughout the free world from communism, dictators and tyrants. Now Americans are the aggressors — we start the wars, we blow up all the infrastructure in those countries, and then turn around and spend tax dollars denying our nation an excellent education system, medical and drug programs, and the list goes on. ...

I hope you all have noticed the Bush administration's style in the campaign so far. All negative, trashing Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John Edwards and Democrats in general. Not once have they said what they have done right, what they have done wrong or what they have not done at all.

Lyndon Johnson said America could have guns and butter at the same time. This administration says you can have guns, butter and no taxes at the same time. God help us if we are not smart enough to know that is wrong, and we live by it to our peril. We in this nation have a serious problem. Its almost worse than terrorism: We are broke. Our government is borrowing a billion dollars a day. They are now borrowing from the government pension program, for apparently they have gotten as much out of the Social Security Trust as it can take. Our House and Senate announce weekly grants for every kind of favorite local programs to save legislative seats, and it's all borrowed money.

If you listened to the President confirming the value of our war with Iraq, you heard him say, "If no weapons of mass destruction were found, at least we know we have stopped his future distribution of same to terrorists." If that is his justification, then, if he is re-elected our next war will be against Iran and at the same time North Korea, for indeed they have weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, which they have readily admitted. Those wars will require a draft of men and women. ...

I am not enamored with John Kerry, but I am frightened to death of George Bush. I fear a secret government. I abhor a government that refuses to supply the Congress with requested information. I am against a government that refuses to tell the country with whom the leaders of our country sat down and determined our energy policy, and to prove how much they want to keep that secret, they took it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Those of you who are fiscal conservatives and abhor our staggering debt, tell your conservative friends, "Vote for Kerry," because without Bush to control the Congress, the first thing lawmakers will demand Kerry do is balance the budget.

The wonderful thing about this country is its gift of citizenship, then it's freedom to register as one sees fit. For me, as a Republican, I feel that when my party gives me a dangerous leader who flouts the truth, takes the country into an undeclared war and then adds a war on terrorism to it without debate by the Congress, we have a duty to rid ourselves of those who are taking our country on a perilous ride in the wrong direction.

If we are indeed the party of Lincoln (I paraphrase his words), a president who deems to have the right to declare war at will without the consent of the Congress is a president who far exceeds his power under our Constitution.

I will take John Kerry for four years to put our country on the right path.

______________________________

The writer, a Republican formerly of Louisville, was Jefferson County judge from 1962-1968 and U.S. senator from Kentucky from 1968-1975.

courier-journal.com



To: michael97123 who wrote (148625)10/22/2004 11:22:51 AM
From: cnyndwllr  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Mike, the article isn't as important for revealing the mistakes made; it's important because it reveals the lack of quality and depth of thinking that went into making those mistakes. It reveals a glaring tendency to see a complex world in simple terms that fail to reflect reality and will inevitably lead to one screwup after another. It reveals a leadership that will be out-thought, out-maneuvered and out-fought by even a handful of would be revolutionaries. (Can you imagine our president measuring progress in the war on terror by personally hand-checking off names on a list of pre-9/11, suspected Al Queda leaders.)

Because of your long-held loyalties to the Republican party, are you willing to condemn Kerry because he stated the simple truth that we need to get to the point for everyday Americans that the fear of terrorism will become a nuisance, while you overlook fatal flaws in a leadership that has screwed things up and cost a thousand American lives in a gratuitous war in Iraq as the terrorist threat grows quietly and spreads?

You're too smart to fall under the spell of slogans and smears. Luke, fight the darkside.



To: michael97123 who wrote (148625)10/22/2004 2:32:08 PM
From: Michael Watkins  Respond to of 281500
 
This "nuisance" comment is unfortunate. I agree with him in what he is fundamentally saying -- terrorism is never going to be completely eradicated. Like it or not.

You either:

a) turn the country into an absolute and total police state (to find the remaining terrorists still in our midst), close the borders completely (to prevent them from coming here or sending weapons via freight) and as a by product plunge the world into a monetary crisis on a scale never seen before,

- or -

b) accept that you can do your best, but as long as there are terrorists, particularly highly motivated terrorists, there will be attacks abroad, and at home. This is what Bush and his admin have been telling us for eons - "when, not if" repeated over and over by US authorities and those in the Bush admin. Kerry simply acknowledged that reality, but used bad language which made for an ideal spin bite for Campaign Bush.

Falling into the spin trap doesn't lend anything to the debate.

The question to ask yourself: Is Bush doing, or prepared to do, everything possible to address the *root causes* of terrorism, specifically terrorism against the United States? Do they even understand what the root causes are? Does anyone?

He has a simplistic plan, which no doubt he believes will work - install democracies in the Middle East.

I don't believe that force-fed democracy, backed up by US might, will work in the long run. Whether you agree with my sense or not, you probably will agree that while it isn't working, terrorist recruitment will rise.

There are also bigger risks. What if the people there choose, if actually given the chance, a theocracy? Even a relatively benign theocracy will no doubt demand the removal of all US forces from their sovereign territory.

Of course, the US would not stand for that. What happens when the US is seen by the majority as opposing popular will?