Who Are You? What Do You Want? Where Are You Going? Whom Do You Serve – And Whom Do You Trust?!
Trying to escape his liberal record, John Kerry has been out stumping that “labels don’t mean anything.”
My, that has a familiar ring to it…
From John Kerry’s May 6, 2001 interview on Meet the Press:
I don’t even believe there is a purpose served in the word “war criminal.” I really don’t.
Tell me, Sen. Kerry: A man goes into a bank, points a gun at the teller, and walks out with a bag full of money. Should he be labeled a bank robber?
I happened upon an interesting story coming out of the Associated Press today (for instance, see this story at foxnews.com). General Tommy Franks has been critizing Senator Kerry for his views on Iraq and his anti-war statements after returning from Vietnam:
Franks praised the Democratic challenger’s military service during the Vietnam War, but said Kerry’s later anti-war activities upset him.
“The men I served with in Vietnam weren’t war criminals and I’m proud I served with them,” Franks said.
Of course, Kerry’s people jumped right on this:
Kerry spokesman Sean Smith accused Franks of distorting Kerry’s Senate voting record.
“He reads (Bush political aide) Karl Rove’s talking points very well,” Smith said…
But the best part comes a couple of lines further down:
Kerry never branded any U.S. troops in Vietnam as war criminals, Smith added.
The dishonesty and hypocrisy of that last statement is breathtaking. These are the same people who complain that when Republicans criticize Sen. Kerry’s record on defense votes, they are accusing him of being unpatriotic. It’s OK to draw wild inferences from Republican statements.
But apparently, we must parse Senator Kerry’s statements much more carefully. When he accused troops in Vietnam of committing atrocities and (dare I say it?) war crimes, he wasn’t branding them as war criminals. How does that make sense?
I would just accuse Senatory Kerry’s spokeman of being in denial, but that would be unfair to people in denial. He’s just plain lying.
So, I’m currently watching a Tim Russert interview with erstwhile Presidential candidate Howard Dean on CNBC. The topic turned to Fox News, and his infamous “I Have A Scream” speech. I am amazed that he is still trying to spin it as though Fox News deliberately altered the recording to accentuate his voice.
Lt. Smash catches Kerry’s intellectual dishonesty over Bin Laden in Tora Bora:
This is not a military dictatorship. The President makes the decision to go to war, after consulting with Congress. He may even approve or veto specific military strategies. But he does not write the war plan – the Pentagon does that. Our war planners are some of the most brilliant, thoughtful, and well-educated warriors on the planet. They’ve studied Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, and Mahan. They’ve dissected and analyzed all the major battles in history, from Thermopylae to Desert Storm. They know about logistics, intelligence, artillery, air support, guerilla tactics, and psychological warfare. They are professionals – the best of the best.
The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines who fight these battles are not automatons. We teach our warfighters to think and react. We train them to adapt to the situation on the ground, and learn from their mistakes. And we are proud of what we have accomplished. When Kerry calls Iraq “a grand diversion,” and “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time,” he insults all of us, and denigrates our efforts.
But Kerry also criticizes President Bush directly for making specific mistakes. For instance, several times during the debate, Kerry accused Bush of “outsourcing” the war in Afghanistan, and letting Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora.
KERRY: Unfortunately, [Bin Laden] escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn’t use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The President relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That’s wrong.
So here’s my question for Senator Kerry, the armchair general (who served in Vietnam, don’t you know):
What would you have done differently in Afghanistan?
Presumably, he would have used American military forces, instead of “outsourcing” the effort to local warlords. But what forces where available in theater at the time? The first large contingent of conventional forces in Afghanistan, a brigade of 1,000 US Marines, arrived at an airstrip near Kandahar on November 25, 2001. That city, which had been the last stronghold of Taliban leader Omar, didn’t fall to anti-Taliban forces until December 7.
The only other US forces in Afghanistan at the time were Special Forces, and CIA paramilitaries. Their job was to help organize the various militias into a coherent force capable of defeating the Taliban, and to call in Coalition air strikes as required. It was this combination of Special Forces and local militia that had already driven the Taliban from the strategic city of Mazar-e-Sharif, the airbase at Bagram, and the capital Kabul.
The only US military on the ground at Tora Bora was a contingent of about two dozen Special Forces who were airlifted in to the area on December 2. Their mission was to coordinate the ground attack and to “laze” targets for US bombers. There is no way that these men could have taken Tora Bora without assistance – And the Marines in Kandahar already had their hands full. In any event, Tora Bora was completely overrun by December 12 – but not before the al Qaeda leadership escaped to Pakistan.
Let’s make one thing clear: outside of this “outsourcing” plan, there would have been no significant military action in Afghanistan prior to November 25 – but by the time those first Marines arrived, the Taliban had already been largely defeated. “Outsourcing” the war in Afghanistan was not Bush’s idea. It was the Pentagon and the CIA that came up with this plan. But President Bush did approve it, and it worked.
The only military alternative to this plan would have been a massive invasion of Afghanistan with several heavy divisions. Of course, these divisions would have had to get to Afghanistan by coming ashore in Pakistan and driving through the ungoverned (and largely hostile) Tribal Areas, where the Pakistani army wouldn’t even go. In any event, it would have taken several more months for these forces to arrive in theater – plenty of time for the terrorists to dig in and prepare for the fight.
Does anyone see any problems with this plan? It seems to me that the Russians tried this approach a while back, and the British before them. Both got their asses handed to them. Nevertheless, I’m sure that the Pentagon presented this option to Bush, with all of the caveats above. In my judgement, Bush was right to reject this plan, and go instead with the “outsourcing” approach.
Presented with the same options, would Kerry have made the right decision? Judging from his remarks last night, I’d have to say “no.”
I am wondering why no-one calls Kerry on his stock line about us “fighting a war in Iraq, while Bin Laden in still in Afghanistan.” When all our intelligence tells us that, if he is even alive, he is actually in the tribal areas of Pakistan, where overt military actions are not diplomatically prudent.
There is something very curious going on in this election; for all that the candidates are debating, and every issue is being argued, hammered on, protested and shouted over in every venue from network television, the blogosphere and dead-tree media, the candidates are conspicuously absent from yards, and vehicles.
I know the area where I live is not apolitical, and even though Texas is not a swing state, it is not absolutely 100% for one candidate, but in the last few weeks I have only seen a bare handful of cars with Bush/Cheney, or Kerry/Edwards stickers, not more than half a dozen or so. I cover pretty nearly every street in the development where I live, and there are only two houses with Kerry/Edwards banners. Another resident has a car covered with Kerry/Edwards stickers, but it was parked in the garage the only time I spotted it. There are two houses with Bush/Cheney banners. I missed 16 years of presidential elections through being overseas, but I am quite sure that banners and stickers were much more evident in previous campaigns.
There are far more houses with American flags hanging, and Texas flags, and little banners in the window with blue stars denoting military service, and bits of patriotic folk art on fences, or amid the geraniums, nothing overtly partisan, provocative.
Maybe the absence of campaign banners and stickers is as telling about the degree of passion this particular election arouses. Just about every other election that I remember— and I am old enough to have been aware of the Kennedy-Nixon debate— had a certain degree of theatricality about it, rather like a pro wrestling match, roaring great hollow threats at each other and mugging for the crowds’ applause. Deep down, one had the sense that it was all staged for an effect, that there really wouldn’t be much difference between them, in the long run. The great grey work of the federal bureaucracy would roll ponderously on, perhaps with small diversions to the right or left, regardless of who was the official designated figurehead. After the one-every-four-year sports event was over, everyone put away the partisan banners and were friends again, like fans of the World Series or Super bowl contenders.
But not this time. We are on the other side of the great chasm that 9/11 put across our world, and on this side, the outcome of this election matters to people. We are passionately convinced that it matters, completely assured that the election of one or the other will be an unmitigated disaster, that we are betting the lives of our children— and that is more than hyperbole for those of us with sons and daughters in the military—on the roll of the electoral dice. This is more than just the regular election circus; the conduct of the war against the forces of aggressive Islamofascism depends on its outcome. Do we carry on as we began, or change tactics, and what will be the final human cost?
This matters greatly to us, but in a strange way, it’s become almost private, like the things that really, really matter. This is like your religious beliefs, or your sexual practices, or your income tax returns— not something that you want to put out in front of just everyone, but keep among friends, or people whom you know can be trusted to begin screaming. And this is not something you want to provoke other people about, unnecessarily… after all, you share the neighborhood, or at least the highway with them.
And really, the only place where it really matters that you state your preference will be in the polling place on Election Day.
I’m not watching it tonight. It is on upstairs, where the General and my parents (The Major and Mom, who are visiting us this week) are watching.
In principle, I don’t like the whole Presidential debate thing. We already know who these two candidates are and where they stand. Well, OK, maybe we don’t know exactly where Sen Kerry stands, but it seems unlikely the debate will reveal anything new (or if it does, what’s really new about that?).
Quite frankly, I don’t care if my President is a crack debater. I just want him to be a principled leader whose vision of the nation is much the same as mine.
So, I’ll be downstairs listening to the 70s station on XM and working on my lectures for tomorrow.
I have little doubt I can skulk about the web tomorrow and find out anything I might need to know.
Echoing all the Democratic talking points that I’ve read about in blogs, the Lone Star Iconoclast is endorsing John Kerry for President. The Iconoclast is the newspaper in Crawford, TX, where President Bush has his ranch.
Excerpt:
Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding terrorism and Iraq.
I’m hoping that one (or more) of my fellow bloggers can address that editorial point by point, and show where the fallacies are. I know they’re in there, but I don’t have the rebuttal information at my fingertips. If a rebuttal is already out there, could someone please provide the link? Thanks.
UPDATE: Reader Bill Powell (USN, Ret) sent me an email sharing some information he had dug up.
I did a little investigation into this outfit. Not living in the Waco area, I don’t know what kind of storefront this paper has, but I checked out their website. The site’s domain name was registered on Nov 28, 2000 (the day after Al Gore sued.) The registrant is Smith Media, Inc. in Clifton, TX. Smith Media owns the Clifton Courier weekly newspaper in that town. The owners of this paper are James W. Smith and W. Leon Smith. According to a Seattle Post-Intelligencer article, W Leon Smith is the publisher of the Lone Star Iconoclast. Well a little Google search turned up that W. Leon Smith (as of Oct 2003) is the Mayor or Clifton, TX. Now Clifton is located south-west of Dallas. This is a long way from Crawford, which is near Waco. It would seem to be a large coincidence that a publisher in Clifton would want to expand into the Crawford market at exactly the same time as Bush won the election unless the guy wanted to have a base for making political statements – dontcha think?
Personally, I think it’s interesting that in the endorsement commentary, they state that they endorsed Bush in 2000 — how could they do that if the paper didn’t exist until well after Election Day?????? Hmmmm……..
Update, Part Deux:
Over at The Captain’s Quarters, Ed blogged about this as well, but he also shared the follow-up reactions.
Seems that the folks of Crawford did not appreciate the editorial nor the endorsement, and already six advertisers have pulled their ads from the small weekly paper (circulation 425).
Madison, WI talkradio host Vicki McKenna posts on her website this recorded telephone campaign message from John Kerry, which came out of Ontario Canada.
So I’m discussing Bush, Kerry, and Iraq on some inconsequential BBS. And I’m subjected to the typical liberal idiotarian arguments about no WMD, yadda-yadda, Chalabi. yadda-yadda, Haliburton, yadda-yadda, ad nauseam. So, after discrediting about the 50th cited article from the likes of Al Jazeera, and the World Socialist Website, I respond with the following:
Basically, what you guys are saying is that, because there is some evidence that your preferred conclusion is true, than it is true without question. That is a logical fallacy.
Yes, there have been substantial miscalculations in the past, and there will be more in the future. But, as Sun Tzu teaches us, “no plan, no matter how cleverly conceived, survives its first contact with reality.” When John Kerry says he has a “Four Year Plan” to get us out of Iraq, the wisdom of the ages tells us he’s trying to sell us a bill of goods. Any actions we take will be contingent upon the actions of the Iraqi civil authorities, which aren’t even in place yet. So any talk of grand “plans” is utter nonsense.
Yes, there are negative trends in some metrics. The most notable would be the increase in terrorist aggression, and the resultant losses. And I do not argue that is an entirely unsatisfactory situation. However, from the standpoint of the objective military strategist: The situation is likely to be beyond our currently achievable level of control. But the rate of loss, and its projected increase, is well within a sustainable range. At least on a near to mid-term basis.
Longer term, there are Iraqi security forces coming online – not nearly as quickly as Messrs. Bush and Allawi would have us believe, but far more rapidly than Mr. Kerry is claiming. All indications are that the training situation is getting the bugs ironed out, and moving forward smartly. AND, in this matter, we are getting significant international support (ref. The new NATO sponsored training academy). However, it will take time to build the Iraqi security force level up to one which has the upper hand on the situation. Keep in mind though, there is substantial weight to the argument that, with properly directed control measures by existing coalition forces on the guerillas, the rate of increase in guerilla offensive capability will be far outstripped by that of the Iraqi security forces.
In short, there is light at the end of the tunnel.
And it is common for those in the Kerry camp to liken the Iraq campaign to the Vietnam War. There are far too few parallels here to make any plausible claim of equivalence. Most notable among these differences are that, while the NVA/Vietcong axis had a personnel pool of millions to draw upon, without a massive influx of foreign forces, the Iraqi guerillas can draw upon a pool no likely larger than 250,000. And, while Ho Chi Minh strategized upon an acceptable loss ratio of 10 Vietnamese to 1 imperialist fighter, the loss ratio for the Iraqi Saddamist army/guerillas is far worse. Further, while the NVA/Vietcong axis could call upon the virtually unlimited materiel support of their superpower sponsor, the Iraqi guerillas are far more limited in what support they can expect from their foreign sponsors, as this must be transferred quite clandestinely.
But there is one important parallel we must be wary of: the politization of the war. In Vietnam, when we conducted serious, militarily planned operations, most notably Linebacker II, the results were swift and devastating for the North Vietnamese. But then, on the threshold of victory, the politicians stepped in and pulled back on the reins. The enemy regrouped the war continued, and more people died. And so it has been in Fallujah, Najaf, and Sadr City. Our forces have been on the verge of pacifying, and then sanitizing these major terrorist enclaves, only to be withdrawn for misguided political considerations. Such missteps cannot be repeated.
Now, My personal experience and philosophy tells me that, as with the general war on terror, our Iraqi campaign must be conducted far more aggressively than that of the current administration. Were I CIC, I would be instituting far more dramatic redeployment – making more troops available for actual combat theaters, conducting far more vigorous enlistment campaigns, vastly increasing pay and benefits – for not just active duty, but R/NG, and vets as well – and deploying far more troops to Iraq. This would be not simply for force protection and security, but as a buildup for potential invasion of Syria and/or Iran.
But George Bush has taken a markedly less dynamic and cautious course.
But what of John Kerry? Well, it’s harder to pin down his position on this war than that of a Florida hurricane on a weather map. But there is little doubt that, in one regard, he will increase political control over the Iraq campaign. This goes inescapably had-in-had with his professed desire to increase international participation. Does he fantasize that he could even get France to deploy even a single company, without giving up some major amount of control over conduct of the campaign?
Iraqi interim prime minister Iyad Allawi’s address to a join session of congress today drew repeated applause, Including standing ovations for such declarations that elections will absolutely go ahead in January; that, in 15 of 18 provinces, they could be held tomorrow; and particularly that the coalition must stand firm.
Look for John Kerry to again change his Iraq position.
In a speech today, John Kerry is claiming Gen. Eric Shinseki and Larry Lindsey were forced out due to their dissenting opinions on Iraq. I don’t know about Lindsey, but Shinseki retired on schedule..
Ralph Nader has won the right to be on the November ballot in Florida:
The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that maverick politician Ralph Nader can be on ballot papers in the November US presidential election.
The decision is regarded as a blow to Democratic Party candidate John Kerry.
In the 2000 election Mr Nader attracted enough left-leaning voters in Florida – a key swing state – to cost the Democrats the presidency, analysts say.
The Democratic Party unsuccessfully argued that Mr Nader’s Reform Party was not a genuine national organisation.
The Florida Supreme Court said it was not clear what constituted a national party, and that therefore it could not bar Mr Nader from running in the state.
My question is, why does Nader get all the press, when Michael Badnarik should make the ballot in at least 48 states, and will likely out-poll him in November?
The website Ratherbiased makes a very persuasive argument that last night’s 60 Minutes story questioning President Bush’s National Guard service record was based upon forged documents:
…but it is becoming increasingly evident that 60 Minutes, and the Dan Rather, the reporter behind the story, may have been relying on forged documents to prove their case.
Several indicators point to this conclusion including the fact that the four memoranda, which Rather said were written during the early 1970s by Bush’s commanding officer Lt. Colonel Jerry Killian, are printed in a proportionally spaced type style similar to the common computer font Times New Roman. But such computer technology had not even been invented when the documents were allegedly written.
[…]
For its part, CBS has refused to disclose where it had obtained the controversial documents. During last night’s program, Rather stated “we are told [they] were taken from Colonel Killian’s personal file.” Contacted by The Washington Post, Kelli Edwards, a spokesperson for 60 Minutes declined to elaborate any further.
Other evidence points toward the conclusion that CBS News may have been duped. Two of the alleged memos, dated May 4, 1972 and August 18, 1973, use a font technology that was beyond the capabilities of the day.
[…]
In the face of such evidence (including the fact that Killian has long since been deceased), and CBS’s refusal to reveal its third-party source, it seems increasingly likely that Dan Rather’s “exclusive” has turned out to be a hoax. Should that be the case, it would not be the first time that the 72-year-old anchorman has been embarrassed by reporting unconfirmed stories.
In his legendary book on the 1972 presidential campaign The Boys on the Bus, author Timothy Crouse relayed how many of Rather’s rivals on the White House beat resented him for his gung-ho approach to the facts.
“Rather often adhered to the ‘informed sources’ or ‘the White House announced today’ formulas, but he was famous in the trade for the times when he bypassed these formulas and ‘winged it’ on a story. Rather would go with an item even if he didn’t have it completely nailed down with verifiable facts. If a rumor sounded solid to him, if he believed it in his gut or had gotten it from a man who struck him as honest, he would let it rip. The other White House reporters hated Rather for this. They knew exactly why he got away with it: being handsome as a cowboy, Rather was a star on CBS News, and that gave him the clout he needed. They could quote all his lapses from fact, like the three times he had Ellsworth Bunker resigning, the two occasions on which he announced that J. Edgar Hoover would step down, or the time he incorrectly predicted that Nixon was about to veto an education bill.”
Update: Big Media is now on board. The story is now being run on FNC’s Special Report with Brit Hume.
Update: On MSNBC’s Hardball, Chris Matthews mentioned the 60 Minutes story, but cited nothing about the apparent forgery. Instead, they concentrated on the film Stolen Honor (yesterday’s news). Now they have Donald Trump talking down Bush. Is it any wonder why FNC is #1?
Update: MSNBC did bring up the issue on ex-sportscaster Keith Oberman’s show. Rather and CBS are currently putting up a stonewall that would make John Kerry himself proud. But this isn’t a simple news story; we are talking about forged government documents here. It seems to me like something John Ashcroft would want to look into.
The liberal media is up-in-arms over the sunseting of the 10 year-old federal “assault weapons” ban, Typical is this WaPo article, which virtually mimics the material supplied by its primary source:
The report by the Consumer Federation of America, which favors greater regulation of the gun industry, concludes that “assault weapons will be more lethal and less expensive” without the ban and argues that police “may be forced to adopt a more militaristic approach” as greater numbers of firearms flood the market.
You’d think it’s the beginning of a new arms race. We may need to call out the National Guard to maintain order.
I have yet to find a gun control advocate that can tell me (without being easily and definitively refuted) what makes an AR-15 “more lethal” than a Ruger Mini-14.
Update: Surprisingly, Fox Butterfield presents a mostly ‘fair and balanced’ article in todays NYTimes. The major exception is one glaring factual error:
One statistic not in dispute is that the weapons are disproportionately involved in the killing of police officers. A Violence Policy Center study found that of the 211 police officers killed in the line of duty from 1998 through 2001, 41 were killed with an assault weapon, many of them post-ban models.
In truth, the VPC has taken a very broad definition of what is an ‘assault weapon’ in arriving at that figure:
The VPC claims 41 of 211 officers dying in 1998-2001 were wounded by assault weapons. In addition to misleading the public about Officer Stem’s death, the VPC has other cases of stretching the truth.
Their list of officer deaths includes 14 cases where they claim assault weapons were used, but the rifles indicated were not on the Federal assault weapons list. In two cases, the rifles were the Ruger Mini-14 rifle, a rifle model specifically excluded by name from the assault weapon list as a sporting firearm (see Appendix A of 18 USC Sec. 922 or Senator Feinstein’s publication http://feinstein.senate.gov/booklets/assault.pdf). In 4 cases the rifles were M-1 carbines and in 8 cases the rifles were SKS carbines. None of these rifles are on lists of assault weapons.
In one case, the primary weapon to down the officer was a shotgun and an assault weapon was used during the thug’s attempt to flee. In four cases the killers used 9 mm handguns classified as assault weapons and these guns are already banned in Maryland.
In one case a rifle was stolen from a police department and used to kill two officers. Bans usually permit police to hold these weapons, so it is deceptive to include this case as an example where a legislative remedy is possible. So, in 20 of the 211 killing or roughly one in 10, killers used assault long guns whose use might have been prevented by a ban. That is, if killers could not devise an effective substitute for the same situation. In all of the remaining 211 cases, the killers did find satisfactory alternative solutions by using 30-30 and other rifles, shotguns and handguns.
A point not addressed by the VPC is that the killers for 26 of the VPC’s 41 officer had prior criminal records sufficiently serious to disqualify them from owning firearms. Two had convictions for previous killings. One in five of the killers of the VPC group of officers was on probation or parole. The idea that a ban would be effective is hard to accept given these criminals were already disqualified from possessing any firearms.
In an interesting confluence, while reading The Cato Institute’s Michael F. Cannon’s opinion piece, stating that former President Bill Clinton is lucky that his 1993 public health plan did not succeed, I’ve just been watching a concurring opinion from Fox News’ John Gibson. One salient point, which escapes them both, is that any legislation enacting such a plan would, no doubt, exempt current and former government officials, and their families.
I advise all to check out AMC’s Rated R: Republicans in Hollywood – just as a reminder that the town doesn’t only breed fools. 🙂
Contrary to what it may seem at times, I do have a real life. And, as such, I was unable to catch most of today’s GOP convention. But, from what I saw, if the rest of the convention follows the tone set today, I fully expect Bush/Cheney to see the bounce from this that Kerry/Edwards didn’t see from theirs
Rudy Giuliani was in particularly fine form. His joke about Kerry needing Edwards’ ‘Two Americas’ to accomodate his position(s) on the issues was a master stroke.
But I really liked the women that directly preceded him. I broke out in a huge smile when the last one mentioned being proud and happy to :share her son with America” when the Navy sends him to the middle east shortly. I your face, Micheal Moore!
I’m currently watching C-Span’s Washington Journal this morning. And a woman called in from Florida claiming that a person can write the registar of voters claiming they are moving there, and then can vote on the Florida ballot for ten years.
So, Florida readers, or anyone else in the know – any truth to this?
In yet another amazing coincidence, CNN ran a story today about overseas military absentee ballots and how a repeat of 2000 could occur again this year. The situation is made worse by the fact that thousands more people are deployed this time around, many of them to remote and inhospitable regions.
What’s most interesting about the article is that it appears to dispute my assertation that perceptions of heavy Republican voting by military members leads to Democrats applying strict interpretations of the law when counting military votes, and Republicans allowing improper ballots to go through as a means of maximizing their respective advantages.
Thousands of votes from U.S. troops overseas could go uncounted again in November without emergency legislation extending deadlines for the ballots, a Chicago election official warned President Bush in a letter Tuesday.
Nearly 30 percent of military voters who requested ballots in 2000 didn’t get them in time to vote. Theresa M. Petrone, a Democratic member of Chicago’s three-person Board of Election Commissioners, told Bush the problem could be solved if he proposed emergency legislation giving election officials up to 14 days after Election Day to collect and count ballots.
Note that this is a Democrat pushing the deadline extension– in Chicago, of all places.
White House spokesman Ken Lisaius declined to comment, saying he hadn’t seen the letter. Congressional leaders have opposed amending the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and such emergency legislation is unlikely before November.
Now note that “Congressional leaders”, who I assume to be Republicans, as they currently hold a majority in both Houses, are opposed to amending the act that would allow for an extension.
Is this a sign that perceptions are changing? Politics is an odd game with irrational actors, but you can get a grip on how people will behave if you know what their perceptions are, since politics is basically the creation and manipulation of perception for personal advantage. This story may be a sign that a perception exists among both Parties that the overseas absentee vote may not break heavily towards the Republicans in this election, and could in fact help the Democrats. Whether that’s true or not doesn’t matter. Politics isn’t about truth, it’s about perception.
I find this story odd, because I can’t imagine a Democrat pushing for something that would be disadvantageous to the Party, and the Republicans then resisting an amendment that would benefit them, especially in an election where the military overseas absentee vote stands a chance of deciding the Presidency.
Or it could be that Theresa M. Petrone is a good person who actually gives a shit. It’s been known to happen, even in politics.
In an amazing coincidence, the Secretary of Defense has distributed an unclassified message for widest possible dissemination that touches on a couple things that we’ve been talking about here lately. It’s basically a reiteration of long-standing DoD policy and regulations covering the actions of military personnel vis-a-vis elections and political candidates. Note that most of these policies deal with acts committed while serving in an official capacity (i.e., in uniform, explicitly identifying self by rank and service prior to making political statements, on-duty, etc.). I’ll quote the salient points:
General Policy. As a matter of long-standing policy, DoD personnel acting an their official capacities may not engage in activities that associate DoD with any partisan political campaign or election, candidate, cause or issue.
Inquiries from political campaign organizations. DoD personnel must forward all inquiries from political campaign organizations to a public affairs officer (PAO) for awareness and appropriate action.
Installation commanders will ensure that candidates who visit military installations to conduct official business do not engage in any political campaign or election activity during the visit. The preceding prohibition does not apply to the President, the Vice President, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives. To avoid the appearance of preferential treatment, installation commanders should offer all candidates for national office who are not current members of Congress or serving governmental officials the same access to installations as any other unofficial visitor.
Media coverage of installation visits. When an installation commander invites a candidate to an installation to participate in official business, and the media seeks to cover the event, the candidate may appear on camera and in photographs as an official participant, but may not make a statement or respond to media queries while on the installation. The Secretary of Defense may authorize exceptions to this policy on a case by case basis for the Pentagon Reservation, but under no circumstances will a candidate receive approval to make a campaign or election-related statement or to respond to a campaign or election-related media query. When an elected official arrives or departs a military installation via military aircraft, the installation commander will not authorize media coverage of the arrival or departure if the elected official’s itinerary includes political campaign or election activity in the local community. The preceding prohibition does not apply to the President, the Vice President, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives. When the President, Vice President, or Speaker of the House arrives or departs a military installation via military aircraft and part of that official’s itinerary includes political campaign or election activity in support of a particular candidate, the installation commander will allow the media a photo opportunity to cover the arrival or departure of the President, Vice President, or Speaker of the House, but will not allow the supported candidate to be present during the photo opportunity.
DoD maintains a long-standing policy that DoD personnel acting in their official capacities may not engage in activities that associate DoD with any partisan political campaign or election, candidate, cause, or issue. Consistent with this policy guidance, installation commanders will decline requests for military personnel to appear in or support political campaign or election events. All military personnel, including national guard and reserve forces, are prohibited from wearing military uniforms at political campaign or election events [doesn’t include color guards-S].
All military personnel, including National Guard and Reserve forces, acting in their official capacities may not engage in public commentary, including speeches and written submissions offered for publication, concerning political campaigns or elections absent prior clearance.
FYI
Hugh Hewitt has responded to my last post, and his response is pretty good.
First, he points to an interesting article from the San Diego Union-Tribune. Here’s the section that he quoted:
A series of polls by the Pew Research Center for the Public and the Press showed that Bush leads Kerry among men with military experience, 49 percent to 40 percent. Other polls gave Bush an even larger advantage.
A Battleground Poll conducted in late June by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake and Republican surveyor Ed Goeas showed that likely voters among active military and reserve personnel and veterans favored Bush over Kerry, 52 percent to 44.
He didn’t quote this portion, though:
Research on the other 85 percent of military personnel – the junior enlisted service members – suggests that group is “pretty much mainstream American, not disproportionally conservative, not disproportionally Republican,” Segal said.
Guess where I fall? I’m not an officer, nor am I a senior enlisted troop. I work for a living and I work with this group of people who comprise over 85% of the military. So what I said, based on my own personal experience, is true. I’ll also note that Hugh’s statement never said anything about voting, but how an overwhelming majority of active duty feel. If this poll (taken from the same article Hugh cited) and my personal experience is true, then an overwhelming number of active duty people don’t feel that they’re 100% against the Democratic Party. Some lean Democrat, some lean Republican, but most don’t care either way.
But the career personnel are more likely to vote,
That’s also true, but I think that’s changing, at least for this election.
The article also included these interesting factoids:
However, Lake said there was some anecdotal evidence Kerry does better among military wives.
Last September, a Battleground Poll showed Bush’s approval rating among military family members at only 36 percent.
Peter Feaver, a professor at Duke, said Kerry is making inroads among the families of military personnel, particularly the kin of Guard and Reserve members deployed to Iraq.
That’s generally true from what I’ve seen.
Although the military has done little in the past to encourage people to vote, the Pentagon launched a major campaign this year to help the troops, particularly those deployed overseas, register to vote and to apply for absentee ballots.
That’s utter horseshit. As long as I’ve been in, there has always been a big push to get as many people to vote as possible, even in the off-years. We have people who act as Voting Representatives. They go around, encourage people to register to vote and help them do so. I’ve never seen is anyone tell us how to vote, not even implicitly. I guess it’s understood that we’re all going to vote Republican anyway, because we can’t help it.
Now I will quote from and respond to Hugh:
But it seems to me he’s trying to speak for his colleagues in the military far more than I am
I speak for my colleagues, because that is one of the things I’ve always done on this website. I speak for myself, but since no one else I know has one of these things, I consider it my responsibility to represent the point of view of the people I work with. Other people with different points of view, from different services and occupations within those services, can represent themselves as they see fit, but this point of view is mine and those I know, based on how we see it.
But let me again quote what Hugh said the first time, when a Marine, in uniform, said he was 100% against Kerry and 100% for Bush:
This is how the overwhelming number active duty military in this country feel about the Democratic Party and its Michael Moore-loving elites.
Based on the article Hugh himself quoted, this is not how the overwhelming number of active duty military in the country feel about the Democratic Party (not Kerry, but the entire Democratic Party). If that were the case, then an overwhelming number of active duty military are 100% against roughly half of this country’s voting public. Again, the first quote, where he builds upon his initial supposition:
The would-be commander-in-chief doesn’t have the respect of the men and women he seeks to command. George W. Bush does. So whose judgment do you trust when it comes to which man is better equipped to lead the military and guide the war?
The only thing I can say to that is to take that statement and use another group who are apparently the lapdog of a political party: African-Americans. The current President doesn’t have the respect of the people he is supposed to lead. John Kerry does. So whose judgment do you trust when it comes to which man is better equipped to lead this country?
I can extend that example out to roughly half of this country’s populace, perhaps more. If recent polls are any guide, than an overwhelming majority of Americans currently disapprove of the job Bush is doing. Aren’t the American people the best judge of who is doing a good job and of who is leading them? Then again, why should we listen to them? Shouldn’t we use our own personal judgement, instead of jumping on the bandwagon and going along with the crowd?
But we in the military aren’t average American citizens. We’re their servants, which makes this situation a bit more delicate than usual. Your own assertation refutes your advice to the American people to trust our judgement, since we’re apparently overwhelmingly Republican no matter what. If what you say is true, then we’re not a neutral party, but instead a special-interest group acting out of personal interests and desires. Since we’re as partisan as the next special interest group, then our judgement is automatically suspect, because we’ve just declared that we have a personal stake in the election and we’ve chosen our side. If that is the truth, then the military obviously can’t be held up as an example of unbiased and professional judgement. We’re as trustworthy as any other special-interest group, and our opinions should be treated as lightly as theirs.
Back to Hugh’s most recent post:
But he should ask himself if the Dems are as widely loved or not-loved as the President in military circles, why so much effort by Gore-Lieberman in Florida in 2000 to toss out the votes of military serving overseas? That’s the clincher in any argument over how the active duty military views the Democratic Party: When push came to shove, the Dems wanted the military’s ballots tossed out. Draw your own conclusion on which way the military votes.
That’s actually an interesting case, because it confirms what an overtly partisan military brings upon itself. Let’s shelve the matter of whether the military automatically votes Republican, and instead focus on the perception that we do. The military overseas absentee ballot debacle is a good illustration of what this perception brings about.
Now, I can’t make heads or tails of what happened in Florida. There seemed to be enough chicanery to spread around, but from what I’ve been able to gather from Googling the event, here’s what I think happened:
First, hundreds of overseas absentee ballots were tossed out by state election officials because they didn’t bear a postmark, which State law required. Among these non-postmarked ballots were military ballots, which in the past had been thrown out, but with the scrutiny of the 2000 election, they were given a closer look. Federal law stated that military absentee ballots were exempt from the postmark rule, and since people were actually paying attention this time around, the military absentee vote became an issue. Here’s an Op-Ed I found describing the situation and what happened:
Last Friday, some 1,400 overseas military ballots — 40 percent of all those cast — were excluded from the official count, many because they lacked postmarks as required by Florida law. Since the military vote was breaking for Texas Gov. George W. Bush by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, those disqualified absentees potentially could have added 200 to 300 more votes to his current 930-vote lead over Mr. Gore — which could be crucial to a Bush victory if the ongoing hand counts of ballots are allowed to stand.
The county vote counters were scrupulous about checking for postmarks thanks in large part to a five-page memo distributed last week by a Tallahassee lawyer who is assisting with Democratic election lawsuits in Florida. It outlined techniques on protesting absentee votes and included a section specifically on challenging postmarks.
Perhaps not surprisingly, counties won by Mr. Gore threw out more military overseas ballots (60 percent) than did counties won by Mr. Bush (29 percent). In one extreme example, Democrat-controlled Broward County disqualified 304 of its 396 overseas ballots.
What was obviously going on was political chicanery, but it underscores an important point: since the military is apparently openly Republican and is perceived to vote that way by everyone, then they’ve set themselves up for this kind of nonsense. If we’re “100% against the Democratic Party”, then we’ve declared ourselves to be hostile towards the Democrats who count our votes–Democrats who can suddenly decide to apply a strict interpretation of the law to our votes and a looser interpretation to other votes. And who can blame them? We’re “100% against” them.
From what I also gather, their was some tit-for-tat dealing between Republicans and Democrats over the hand counting and the absentee situation. The hand counting was apparently tilting heavily toward Democrats and the Republicans were crying foul because there was some shady work supposedly going on there, but the Republicans were no angels, either. For example, there was evidence that Republican election officials had improperly handled absentee votes. There was also evidence that many absentee ballots were missing signatures and what-not, which further confused the situation because of the overblown rhetoric swirling around at the time.
I also found this article covering Democratic reaction to the military absentee ballot situation:
Leading Democrats, including vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman, are calling on Florida canvassing officials who have tossed a number of military absentee ballots out because they did not have postmarks to reconsider their decision and count them after all.
Lieberman, on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, said Republicans had managed a public relations victory over Democrats in general because of the decision by some county election officials to disqualify over 1,400 military absentee ballots.
[…]
“My own point of view, if I was there, I would give the benefit of the doubt to ballots coming in from military personnel, generally,” Lieberman said.
Of the local canvassing boards, he continued, “if they have the capacity, I’d urge them to go back and take another look [at accepting the ballots], because again, Al Gore and I don’t want to ever be part of anything that would put an extra burden on the military personnel abroad.”
Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., joined Lieberman yesterday to urge county election officials to reconsider their decision.
“I believe that we ought to bend over backwards to have everybody’s vote, and particularly those men and women who are serving us in uniform in high-risk areas,” Graham told NBC’s “Today Show” co-host Katie Couric.
[…]
Meanwhile, Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth, a supporter of Vice President Al Gore, advised counties that they “should count” overseas ballots, even if they bear no postmarks.
“No man or woman in military service to this nation should have his or her vote rejected solely due to the absence of a postmark,” Butterworth said yesterday in a letter to the state’s 67 counties, according to an Associated Press report.
County election officials of both parties have said such non-postmarked military ballots have been discarded in similarly large numbers in past elections, but that more attention has been given them this year because of the closeness of the presidential race.
My point remains, though. If everyone assumes we’re always going to vote Republican, then we’ve made ourselves the target of people that we’re “100% against”. Our votes could get tossed out by unscrupulous Democratic officials. What’s worse, what about those in the military who don’t vote Republican? Their votes get tossed out too because we’re apparently all the same, and have no problem advancing the perception that we’re all Republicans, even when we’re not.
This obviously doesn’t excuse the Democrats who engage in this sort thing, but like I said, who can blame them? The conservative military, speaking on behalf of us all, has declared them to be their enemy and by jumping headfirst into partisan political waters, they’re screwing us all over.
Update: So, as I was saying…
To wrap this monster up, I want to say that by openly declaring who we’re for and against, we’re possibly introducing doubt into the citzenry’s mind about our loyalties. The people of this country expect us to serve the Constitutional government, and by extension all of them, with all the dedication we can muster, no matter who is in charge. That’s why we have rules that say you can’t attend a political rally in uniform, that you can’t publicly campaign for candidates, and that you can’t run for Congress. That’s why it’s imperative that we not allow ourselves to be used as a politician’s or pundit’s prop to advance their own agenda, whether you agree with that particular agenda or not. We have to maintain the image of neutrality. Yes, I know it’s just for appearance’s sake, but appearances matter in politics, and it doesn’t take much to introduce doubt into the citizenry’s mind about our fealty to the government and to question just which master we serve. Once that doubt exists, it opens the door to things that are much worse, and you can’t just say, “Well, I may be a conservative, and though I donate large amounts of money and time to the Republican Party and hate Democrats, you can trust me to do my job no matter what.” Tell me, why should anyone take you at your word? Why should anyone trust you? You just told half the citizenry that you’re against the people they elected to represent them, which means that you just told half the citizenry that you’re against them. You don’t just serve the people you agree with. You serve all of them, and you have to keep that in mind before you try your best to destroy our credibility with the half you don’t agree with.
Everybody’s already linked to this story about Kerry and a couple of Marines eating at Wendy’s, and while I certainly agree that getting bothered by a Presidential candidate and the press entourage that clings to him like barnacles on a hull is a hassle, I did get a kick out of this bit:
“I’m 100 percent against” Kerry, he said. “We support our commander-in-chief 100 percent.”
So, if Kerry were to become the next Commander-in-Chief, would you still be against him 100%? Or would it come down to 60 or 75%? I’m trying to figure this out, because support for the current CINC is one thing, but when you openly express that you’re 100% against the guy who could be your next CINC, then you’re setting yourself up for a situation you don’t want to be in. We serve the Position, not the Man. The military has no business forming personality cults around politicians.
Oh, and what is this?
This is how the overwhelming number active duty military in this country feel about the Democratic Party and its Michael Moore-loving elites. Clip and save and reread when you hear Kerry-Edwards talking about how they will strengthen the military. The would-be commander-in-chief doesn’t have the respect of the men and women he seeks to command. George W. Bush does. So whose judgment do you trust when it comes to which man is better equipped to lead the military and guide the war? The active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, or John Kerry’s band of brothers?
I’m going to say this as nicely as possible: Go to hell. It pisses me off when fucking moonbats portray us as Pathetic Victims of the Man or Dumb Brutes Who Kill People for Fun. It pisses me off even more when people presume to speak on my behalf, and on my comrades’ behalf, as if we were some data point on a score sheet.
Let me clue you in on something, Hugh: We’re not fucking idiots. You will find as many opinions on Bush, Kerry and all the rest of it as you’ll find in the rest of the country. There’s about as many Democrats as Republicans in the military, especially among enlisted folk. There’s an even greater percentage of people who don’t care at all because they know that it doesn’t matter who’s President or who’s in control of Congress. Our lives don’t change.
When I first joined, Bush I was President. He deployed the military to Saudi, threw Saddam out of Kuwait and then authorized a series of deployments to various locales in and around Iraq. He also deployed us to Somalia. His Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, tried to nix or seriously reduce many of the critical equipment and programs that we eventually came to rely upon during the last 3 years. He also started the RIF, which gutted our force. It tooks us years to recover from that fuck-up.
Then came Clinton. He deployed us to Bosnia, Haiti, and a score of other countries for relief missions. The Ops Tempo remained at a constant high throughout most of his Presidency. Toward the end, we started getting money for quality of life stuff and the Ops Tempo decreased a little bit after the Kosovo Air War.
Then came Bush II. The quality of life stuff started drying up and he’s deployed us to Afghanistan, Iraq, Central America, and God knows where else. The Ops Tempo went back up.
Now you tell me: What has exactly changed during the past 15 years? I can’t tell any real difference between the three Presidents. I can’t tell any difference between the Congresses that have come and gone. Everything remains the same year after year and the motto remains unchanged: Do More With Less. In the Air Force, we’ve been on a wartime footing for what seems like my entire career. That’s three Presidents, Hugh. Nothing’s different and most people I know are aware of that, so don’t assume that we’re all gung-ho for Bush and the Republicans, and please don’t use us to lie to the citizenry. Some of us don’t like Kerry and a lot of us don’t care much for Bush, but most of us don’t care at all because it doesn’t matter who sits in the Oval Office. The only thing that changes are the places we go.
I’m going to delay my next scheduled post, Prioritization and Focus, and instead do Politics and Personalities first, because I won’t be able to get the other done until I get this out of my head.
Part 1: Politics
To paraphrase Clausewitz: war is politics by other means. Turn that statement around and it remains true: politics is war by other means. In our country, we don’t have coups or use violence to impose our will upon the country, but we do have an elegant system that, while eliminating the need for violence, still allows us to employ the characteristics of warfare in the political arena to achieve our goals. We also have a country with a strong streak of individualism, and I think there’s a way to combine those two things to achieve meaningful change without joining a political Party and attempting to change it from within, or forming a separate Party and trying to take the two established ones head on.
A lot of people feel that they have to form their own parties in order to participate in the process and affect changes amenable to them. Why? Standing before you are two systems already organized for that purpose. They have all the tools, people, and money in place. Why re-invent the wheel and bog yourself down trying to win the game by their rules when you can simply use them to get what you want? Let them raise the money. Let them nominate the candidates. Let them spend their own time and money firing up their base. Let them do all the legwork. Let them make all the speeches they want. All you have to do is simply pick and choose who you would like to see win and who you would like to see lose based on your own priorities. We as individuals can do so much more by using their systems to our advantage than we ever could by forming our own Parties to compete with them.
Political Parties are formed so that like-minded individuals can organize and impose their will on everyone else. By coming together in such large numbers, they give the impression of strength. Interestingly, prey also exhibit this same behavior in the animal world, so forming a Party may not be the best idea. Does the cheetah become like a gazelle to seek nourishment? Do cheetahs eat grass and move stupidly from one location to the next seeking food? Do cheetahs compete with gazelles for resources? Do cheetahs form large groups for mutual defense and protection against predators? No. They are the predators. They are individuals who prey upon the gazelle for their own personal nourishment. They track and analyze their prey. Once they’re ready, they spring upon the herd and take down the young, the weak, the infirm, and the unfortunate. In the end, the gazelle give them what they want: food. You might want to become the predator if you want to accomplish your ends. Guess what? You already have the two largest herds in American politics, the Republicans and Democrats, at your disposal.
Cheetahs normally hunt alone, but other predators sometimes hunt in groups. Take wolves, for example. They hunt in packs and bring an enormous amount of force to bear upon their prey at specific weak points in the herd’s structure. We as individuals can take a cue from this behavior and modify it for our own purposes. The only problem with wolves and other social predators is that not only do they hunt in groups, they also live in groups. They concentrate their numbers, which makes them easier to eradicate by the ultimate predator: man. So, what’s an individual to do? You can’t form a political party to compete for the general public’s attention; the Big Two would merely swat you away and render you largely irrelevant. You also can’t form solid social networks to prey upon the Parties, because you’d give them a target to attack. Unlike most prey, they can and do fight back. The answer lies with the very thing you are using to read this right now: the Internet. I’m not talking about blogs or other sites that exist merely to opine, either. They serve their purpose, but they’re not the best way to do business. What I’m talking about is the Internet’s ability to link disparate people together. The Internet, after all, is the world’s best communication device.
Here’s a scenario: Imagine you have hundreds of thousands of people who don’t fit into either the Left or the Right. They don’t have that much in common with either side, so they don’t seek common cause with others in either political party. They all have their own priorities and they usually focus on so many varied things that they could never come together to form their own Party, but their numbers are so large that at least some of the time, elements within this group share the same priorities. How do these people quickly communicate and temporarily organize to achieve a common goal before dissolving and going about their separate ways?
It’s a scenario that exists right now, but unlike in times past, we have a tool that empowers this group and provides a tool for them to form alliances of convenience and allows them to bring their collective power to bear upon specific points in the system to achieve their ends, just like a wolf pack. The Internet, as well as the myriad communication networks that exist nowadays, is the perfect tool to facilitate these temporary wolf packs and affect change. The change may not be dramatic or largely noticeable at that exact moment, but the collective efforts of all these wolf packs over time would have a dramatic impact on the system itself. The reason why this set-up could work, especially for moderates and independents, lays in the political system as it exists today.
Right now, we have two Parties that represent two supposedly distinct and diametrically opposed ideologies. We call them the Left and the Right. Both of these Parties have followers who will always vote for their respective Party. Each Party has its own halo of people who aren’t strict Party members, but share enough in common with the Party’s current ideology, that they tend to vote for that Party. What’s leftover are two groups of people: Those who don’t care and don’t vote, and those who do care, but don’t fall into either specific Party’s sphere of influence. We call the latter group of people “swing-voters” or Independents. Whatever you call them, they are the king-makers, as they usually end up deciding the winner of many elections. The problem is that most of the time, Independents are not only unaware of the power they wield, they also wield it haphazardly with no organization whatsoever. Imagine if these Independents were able to use the communication networks available today to briefly organize and plan who to vote for based on a common cause, irrespective of which Party a candidate happened to belong to? After the election ended, they would disperse and form networks with different people for different purposes, which would also end after time, and so on and so on. They could have an impact on elections that would go beyond mere accident, and they would be organized enough to co-ordinate their efforts with likeminded individuals in other areas of the country. Though organized, theirs would not be a strict organization with charismatic leadership, middle managers, or foot soldiers all acting in concert to promote a candidate and further a hardened ideology. They would be individuals with their own agendas who link with each other for a time in order to bring an enormous amount of force to bear on the two parties to fulfill their goals, just like a wolf pack.
The two Parties obviously wouldn’t like these Independent Wolfpacks. Gazelles probably don’t like being hunted and eaten by predators, either, but like’s got nothing to do with it. You can’t compete with the Parties, so you might as well use them to get what you want. The greatest advantage that an Independent Wolfpack would enjoy is that the Parties couldn’t effectively fight back or nullify them. How do you fight a shadow? How do you defeat a fog? The Parties are offered neither an organized system, nor personalities to fixate upon to discredit and defeat. There’s no hierarchal structure and no charismatic leader. In the Democrats and Republicans’ case, like can only attack like. To fight the Wolfpacks, they would have to fight themselves.
What I’ve just described is guerilla warfare. It’s a tried and true method of defeating a well-armed and organized foe by using a foe’s strengths to your advantage, so that those same strengths become your enemy’s greatest weakness. It’s only been modified and applied to suit the political realm, where the Parties aren’t your enemies, just a way for you to get what you want. It’s an idea to consider.
Part II will deal with Personalities.
This post is a follow-up to my last one where I asked, “Are you safer now than you were three years ago?” If your answer to that question is “yes”, then this isn’t for you. Go…play with a stick or something. For the rest of you, I can’t gurantee anything. That last post was an off-the-cuff thing I did in about ten minutes, so I’m trying to put some thought into this one, which means that it’ll probably suck.
My Dad used to say that nothing was impossible if you put your mind to it. After thirteen years of serving in the Air Force, I know he was right. I’ve been a part of teams who’ve been given seemingly impossible goals to accomplish, only to find that those goals were not impossible at all. Sometimes, I think back on some of those tasks and ask myself, “Wow, how did we do that?” It’s no big secret when you think about it. Teamwork –real teamwork– was the most important element, but I also know that the same common traits were present in every event: Confidence, Motivation, Dedication, Optimism, Focus, and Lack of Defeatist Thinking. I know that these words sound corny and have become cliches, but when you’ve seen it in action and have been a part of it, they seem as natural as wearing an old pair of jeans and a T-shirt.
The reason I bring this up is because one of the reactions to my previous post disturbed me: the possibility of Social Civil War. From what I can tell, a lot of you seem to think that it’s inevitable and are resigned to it. If you truly believe that, then there’s no question that it will happen. It’s a defeatist attitude. When everyone believes that bad things are inevitable, than those things have a way of happening. They are inevitable because you have made them so. Now, most people will say, “It’s not my fault. It’s those dicks over there that are the problem!” I don’t care. There are dicks everywhere. To me, they’re just stepping stones to mission accomplishment, and they make the victory that much sweeter for having been there. You don’t say, “Well, those guys are dicks. So much for that, then.” Unless, of course, you like losing.
All of this is a prologue to main thrust of this post: My ideas for making things better. Man, that sounds rich, don’t it? Another damned blogger who has the cure for all that ails us. I’m here to tell you that I don’t have any good answers. All I have are some ideas. These ideas, however, involve hard work, motivation, dedication, confidence, optimism, focus, and a lack of defeatist thinking. If that’s not your style, then you might as well stop reading. This isn’t for you.
Since this is starting to get a little long, what I’m going to do is give you a preview of some of the posts that I’ll be working on. Each will focus on different elements in support of the main focus: What you can do to make America safer.
Priorities
Are you more concerned with what Sandy Berger stuffed into his pants or do you want to win a war? Do you want to help pass a gay marriage amendment or do you want to help make positive changes to this nation’s security that go beyond street theater? Do you think debates about flag burning are more important than serious debates about the course of the war? You have to figure out what your priorities are before you can do anything else. For some of you, your concerns may involve all of those things listed above, but you can’t devote full focus to all of them. You have to prioritize them, and then ignore that which distracts you from your purpose. If your main priority is winning the war on terrorism, then just how important is Joe Wilson? Joe Wilson lied. Great. What are Congress and the President doing about the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission? How effective has the Homeland Security Administration been in fulfilling its mandate? If the GWOT is your Priority #1, then you might be better served by focusing on things other than Joe Wilson or Sandy Berger. We’re not chimpanzees, so we shouldn’t be distracted by–oooh, shiny!
Civic Involvement
This is a participatory government. Yes, that means you vote, but true civic duty extends beyond voting. It requires active and informed participation in all aspects of government, especially those that concern your focus. The means of fulfilling your civic duty are innumerable and can be tailored to your particular style and level of commitment.
Politics and Personalities
What’s more important to you: Rhetoric or results? A political Party or your nation? Posturing or deeds? Feeling good or doing good? Making America safer may mean divorcing yourself from the concepts of loyalty to both political parties and the personalities within those parties. This government has a two party system whether we like it or not. Third parties may act as spoilers, but they’ll never be more than that because they’re trying to beat two old pros at their own game. An individualist approach that deals with the situation as it is may be more effective than going along with a tribe. The only tribe that really matters is the one known as the United States of America. That being the case, you can pit the parties against each other and/or put them to use for you and the nation. They lend themselves to easy manipulation by those who place more importance on the fortunes of the nation rather than the fortunes of a Party.
Seriousness
Do you treat every story about terrorist intentions that comes down the pike with alarm? Do you automatically assume the worst possible scenario when a story about new Homeland Security initiatives or Justice Department actions are released? Are you given to filling in the holes with dire illusions of your own making? Do you take things as they are or do you try to read tea leaves? Do you let your perceptions impede your ability to properly discern the world around you? Seriousness is one of the most critical elements in making America safer. It involves more than a sober course of action, it also involves checking yourself against your own natural inclinations.
Confidence & Optimism
The last post will deal with these two elements, which have nothing to do with acting like a Peacock or thinking that everything’s just hunkey-dorey.
The one good thing that has come out of this week’s hysterical woman story is that it’s made me think about “single-issue voters” and the seeming paradox they represent.
The story, and the response to it from the (forgive the pun) reactionary portion of the blogodome, is telling. Most of the blog responses to the story from the conservative wing or the “single-issue voters” was one of fear. “Could this be a dry run?”, “This is why we need to profile all Arab males!”, “The security doesn’t work, it’s up to us!” were all common responses to the story, which is odd because most of them base their support of the current Administration on the very fact that it has done a lot to protect us from future terrorist attacks. If you believe that this Administration is our last, best hope for Victory, then why do you carry-on as if nothing has changed or improved in the past three years? How do you rationalize the paradox? Most of the responses to the panicked woman story were indictments against the current Administration on the very issue that they say represents their over-riding decision to support the Administration. It doesn’t add up.
If I were a challenger to any incumbent in this election, my main question would be, “Are you safer now than you were 3 years ago?” Let’s go to the handy stand-by: The WWII Analogy. Three years into our entry into WWII, the entire nation had been converted to a wartime footing, the Army had ballooned to Olympian proportions and had subsequently conquered North Africa and Italy. The liberation of France was nearly complete and most were hoping that the war would be over by Christmas. The Marines had been island-hopping in the Pacific and steadily grinding toward Honshu island. Victory in Europe was less than a year away. Victory in Japan would come a couple of months after that.
The main point is that we were winning, we knew we were winning, and we knew the end was in sight. There was no question of another Pearl Harbor happening, and the Wolfpacks in the North Atlantic had been all but eliminated. Americans were confident and secure in their power.
Three years into this current war, we’ve invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. We’ve created a new Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. We created a “Transportation Security Administration”. The nation and the government, however, are still on a peacetime footing. No sacrifice has been asked of the general populace. People are apparently still scared to fly and have no faith in the security apparatus meant to protect them. A sizeable portion of the public honestly believes that we’re not at war. Three years into this thing and we’re about as screwed-up a nation as we can be. If you want someone to blame for the state of things, then each of you needs to take a long, hard look into the mirror.
Most of you conservatives say we’re at war, yet you’d hardly know it from your actions. You engage in the same stupid partisan bickering and arcane gamesmanship as in peacetime. You say this Adminstration is strong against terrorism, yet your very actions and words betray your confidence in it. You support it because it uses strong words and invaded Iraq. When you eliminate all of your paradoxes about this Administration, that’s all you have left: you support this Adminstration because it talks tough and it invaded Iraq. Are you safer now than you were 3 years ago? You wouldn’t know it by listening to you.
Most of you liberals say we’re at war, but your war is against the President. You’re more concerned about defeating Bush than you are about defeating the enemy. To you, Bush is the enemy. Just like your conservative brethren, you’re more interested in political showmanship than doing anything to seriously help win this war. You oppose the President because he uses strong words and he invaded Iraq. Unlike the conservatives, you think that the security apparatus put in place after 9-11 does it’s job too well and does it against the wrong people. Are you safer now than you were 3 years ago? Obviously not. You think we’re on the verge of the Third Reich.
Do you want to know why I’m an independent? It’s because you conservatives and liberals are a stupid and silly people. You bicker and posture as if we have all the time in the world to defeat international terrorism. You say we’re at war and things need to be done right now when it’s politically convenient for you to do so, but you carry-on as if we’re still at peace. We have Americans dying overseas while they’re obstensibly trying to protect you, but all you can do is paint them as either untouchable heroes or pathetic victims. You can’t seriously debate the course of this war because for you, this isn’t a war against international terrorism, this is a war about personalities, specifically one personality: George W. Bush. For you, this isn’t a real war with real consequences, this is just another phoney war of opinion. You aren’t conservatives and liberals, you’re Phobos and Deimos: Fear and Panic. One of you uses the fear of external threats to win elections, the other tries to frighten us with internal threats. You both serve the same Master and that is why your supposed differences are as illusory as the fears you try to frighten us with. You’re more concerned with winning the next election than you are the real war. It’s a farce. This would make for a great comedy if it wasn’t so fucking tragic.
If there’s another major terrorist attack on American soil and thousands more people die, remember who to blame on that day. The silly fools on both the left and right, after the proper period of mourning, will go back to their old props. The conservatives will blame the media and those dastardly liberals, while the liberals will blame the evil neocons and the President (if he’s still a Republican at the time). For them, and for us, the real blame will lay with that person staring back from the mirror. If we lose, it’s because we are all to blame: you, me, everyone. What did you do to prevent another attack? Who did you support in the government? Whose feet did you hold to the fire to ensure Victory? Who did you toss out of office or vote in? Why did you go about your business, thinking someone else would take care of everything? Why were you more concerned with winning an election than preventing another attack? How come you were more concerned about scoring minor political points than scoring major, meaningful victories against international terrorism? Why did you choose to become so caught-up in personalities rather than results? Why did more people have to die because you chose to continue with peacetime foolishness rather than wartime seriousness?
Am I safer now than I was 3 years ago? No. And I doubt I will be three years hence. I blame every single one of you reading this, but more importantly, I blame myself. We all share equal blame for the state of things today. September 11th was a freebie. You can reasonably say you didn’t see it coming, and those that said we were to blame for it were rightly chastised, but the next attack will be our fault. We have no excuses.
I’ve got 9 messages–Nine Freakin’ Messages!–on my machine from the Republican Party reminding me to vote.
I’m not a registered Republican. Why are you bothering me? So help me, if I get one more call, I will vote for the other Party out of spite. There’s a reason we have a National Do Not Call list: People don’t like getting a million phone calls from assholes they don’t know trying to sell them crap–that includes political parties.
Democrats: Don’t get any ideas, either.