My cousin, a professor of Middle East Studies, replied with this:
I don't find Kerry's opposition to Vietnam in any way troubling, and
> unlike the quoted people, I certainly don't see opposition to that or
> any war as opposition to individuals (and obviously not as "treason").
> But Kerry is a decorated veteran who had the guts, upon his return
> stateside, to protest an unjust war. Most Americans then and now agreed
> with him, and because of the antiwar movement the US had no choice but
> to start withdrawing slowly over time, saving the lives of thousands of
> US soldiers and sailors. He also acknowledged that at times, by some
> people in some places, atrocities were committed by US troops -- which
> isn't even a question. We know this happened, as it has now in Iraq.
>
> Unlike Kerry, who volunteered to fight despite his personal opposition
> to the war, Bush used his family's contacts to get into the air national
> guard, and then went AWOL for much of his "service". There are countless
> Vietnam vets organized in each of the 50 states to back Kerry. Back in
> Vietnam, and today in an even more unecessary war, personally I am sick
> of these people accusing all who disagree or oppose military adventurism
> of "treason". And while I too have problems with Kerry, there is simply
> no comparison between Bush and Kerry in terms of their national service,
> intelligence, knowledge of the world, and expertise on defense and
> security ... Bush comes up short every time. Despite the misinformation
> the White House is spreading in TV commercials, Kerry's specialties for
> decades of service as a legislator are defense, security, and support
> for armed forces personnel.
>
> Whether anyone likes it or not, there is no chance of this country
> having an iota of respect left internationally, if Bush is actually
> returned to office. His administration is the best recruiting tool
> terrorists could ever have asked for. Many people not named Bush have
> already payed a terrible price for that and more will follow. The damage
> the Bush regime has done to American democracy and American security
> will take years to repair. But at least regime change at home would
> provide a start.
>
> Bush can't run on his economic and social policies obviously, since they
> have been so disasterous, but even his supposed "strength" is a joke. He
> is simply not the defense and security candidate. He has made our
> country less secure than at any time since WWII. He also is responsible
> for the completely needless deaths of more than 900 US soldiers and he
> needs to be held accountable for that. Iraq was not in any way a threat
> nor did it have the WMD arsenal the Bush people claimed . Iraq was not
> involved in 911 and did not back al-Qaida. Al-Qaida was unable to
> operate inside Iraq under Saddam (ruthless dictators like him do tend to
> crush freelance militant movements). And until Bush's war, Iraq had no
> problem with internal terrorism. Now terrorism is part of daily life and
> Bush has given the world a new stage for terrorists to flock to and
> operate out of.
>
> He says he supports the military while cutting veteran's benefits,
> military services, and military salaries in order to pay off his tax
> cuts to his real political base, the already rich and powerful (who are
> certainly not serving in Iraq or Afghanistan). His corporate Cronies
> are, meanwhile, doing very well.
>
> It's not accidental that the overwhelming majority of Middle East
> specialists, arms control specialists, and counter-terrorism specialists
> all oppose Bush. It might also explain why most people voted against him
> in 2000 too.
>
> Personally, I want my country and my democracy back and I will do
> everything in power to defeat this global embarrassment who is, to me,
> the worst and most dangerous president in American history.
So then I replied with this:
I think our economy is in pretty good shape given the "perfect storm"
formed:
- when the NASDAQ bubble, inflated by crooked investment houses, went bust,
- with the discovery of corporate fraud that lined the pockets of wealthy
executives while investors and employees got robbed, and
- with the successful attack upon Manhattan by two dozen or so
highly-motivated Saudis who trained, in America, to hijack planes and use
them as weapons.
Those three events destroyed million of jobs in America. They ALL developed
while the previous Administration's Justice Department was busying itself
with Elian Gonzales, Microsoft, and, of course, that bogeyman of all
bogeymen: Big Tobacco. Ken Lay ripped off California, Worldcom ripped off
its investors, and the 9/11 hijackers flew crosscountry flights to hone
their plan for the Big Day. Meanwhile, Joe Camel was being locked in his
closet where he belongs. Seems wacky to me.
I am hard-pressed to think of a specific Bush Administration economic policy
that has been disastrous, unless we consider the debt to be a disaster,
which we could. But blaming the loss of jobs since January 2001 on the
current President just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
-------------------
Regarding Iraq:
The notion that we are now "less secure" is something invented out of whole
cloth by someone with a predicatble political agenda. There is no empirical
evidence to support it. It should neither be regurgitated nor rejected
uncritically.
While it is true that Iraq may have not been a threat, many of us saw no
threat at all prior to 11 Sept 2001. Turns out that we had warnings about
Al Qaeda, enumerated specifically in the now-famous 6 Aug 2001 PDB, which
the President has been criticized for not heeding. Interestingly, many of
the same folks who have criticized Bush for NOT responding to those warnings
are now critical of him for responding to CIA, FBI, Czech, and Russian intel
regarding Saddam. Interesting, but not perplexing, in an election year.
Next to lastly, hopefully no reader of this email needs to be disabused of
the notion that "until Bush's war, Iraq had no problem with internal
terrorism." Searching on Google for Iraq+mass+graves is enlightening;
there are links ranging from Fox News to Amnesty International to choose
from. NONE of them portray Iraq 1980-2003 as a place that was absent
"internal terror".
Here's a good example:
http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000374.php
Finally, whether the invasion of Iraq was a solid decision or a disastrous
one likely won't be known for a decade or more. Could be that in 2014, Iraq
will be a functioning democracy, a beacon of freedom in a place where
[relatively] little exists today, or maybe more dominos will have toppled by
then, and the entire region will have reformed itself, much like the new
NATO nations who were freed from Soviet rule a little over a decade ago.
Or Iraq might be a fractured arena of endless civil war, a haven for
terrorists, a seething pot of resentment and hatred toward the West fomented
by the kind imperial meddling that has created much of the current
situation.
Maybe it will be something in between. But it's too early to tell, isn't
it?
I know a guy who's dad had prostate surgery last week.
The day before the surgery, he played golf.
The day after, he couldn't get out of bed.
Did the surgeons make things worse?
I don't think so.
My cousins ALL lean Left and I am certain that they are muttering all manner of things about my ignorance. Ah, well. No replies yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment