DragonFlight

If you honestly believe the Republicans are actually qualified to wage war, and better than the Democrats, you might just want to invest in that sinking golf course in the Everglades, the one with lots of water traps! I actually put more credence in the Tooth Faery and the Great Pumpkin. And speaking of Florida (the land of denied voters), there is a moronic (and/or perhaps just sleazy) businessman there who recently put up a huge billboard displaying a picture of the twin towers burning in NYC with the caption, “Please Don't Vote for a Democrat.”

HUH!?!?!?! What am I missing? Oh right, the myth that Republicans will keep us safer (COUGH)…

The World Trade Center attacks on 9/11 occurred nine months into George Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s (Republicans both) Siamese twin Presidency which repeatedly ignored numerous entreaties by the previous Democratic Administration to be aware of the threat posed by Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. It was Condoleezza Rice (a Republican), Bush’s National Security Advisor, who ignored (or at least didn’t push) an intelligence brief entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States” (mentioning activities "consistent with preparations for hijacking."). We were attacked a month later, and said to be caught completely by surprise.

It was also the Bush Administration (Republicans all) that botched the invasion of Afghanistan, and let Bin Laden escape by beginning a war in Iraq, a nation having nothing to do with 9/11. And, it was the failed policies of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (a Republican) that led to chaos in Iraq, and eventually the insurgence, which has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, including over 4,000 American soldiers, with more than 30,000 wounded, 8,000-plus seriously. And lives have not been the only cost. The war that was sold to us by this Republican Administration, and was going to cost little or nothing because of Iraqi oil revenues, might end up with a price tag approaching $5 trillion when all cost factors are taken into consideration. Yikes, no wonder the American economy is presently booming. For any diehard Republicans and lingering Bush supporters, that last comment was meant to be facetious (look it up)!

All these abominations occurred during a Republican Administration and a Republican led Congress (up until the mid-term elections in 2006). These same Republicans, along with John McCain, the current Republican presidential nominee, are continually claiming the surge in Iraq is a success. This is highly questionable, considering how completely dysfunctional the Iraqi infrastructure is, and just how much hatred has been generated there against America. If you honestly believe that we are close to some kind of victory in Iraq, please watch the documentary “No End In Sight.” You will become educated on all the reasons why the Iraqi people have legitimate cause to hate our nation. It might also become apparent why there will be no peace between Iraq and the United States for a very long time to come! A temporary lull in violence does not a victory make.

Denial is not going to make this mess go away, nor is it going to rationalize away all the pain caused by the present American Economy created by this Republican Administration, not only waging an unnecessary war, but an extremely incompetent and costly one.

I’ve never understood this BS argument that Republicans are the party which serve us best during times of war. The two largest and most noteworthy wars of the 20th Century, WWI and WWII, were successfully fought and won during Democratic administrations. No doubt the Republicans like to talk a good war, but I see absolutely no evidence they know how to successfully fight and win one.

John McCain continues with his hawkish blather, and the erroneous argument that he is somehow qualified as a military genius and Commander in Chief who “knows” how to fight and win a war because he spent five years as a POW in Vietnam and comes from a military family. Just recently he stated, “I know how to win wars. I know how to win wars.” In reality, I don’t really recall just when he has been right about any of his Iraq assessments, or ever played a role in winning a war.

Ironically, Barack Obama (the Democrat) has been correct regarding two issues concerning this present “War on Terrorism.” And of course, he was unmercifully bashed and criticized for his efforts by the Republicans and the right wing when it was convenient to do so.

Obama was in favor of the notion of a timetable for removal of our troops in Iraq, something that is, guess what, now being demanded by the Iraqi government, and considered by the Bush Administration and the Pentagon. Also, Obama said he would be willing to strike Al Qaeda inside Pakistan. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” Well guess what again? According to the International Herald Tribune on June 11, “American air and artillery strikes killed 11 Pakistani paramilitary soldiers during a clash with insurgents on the Afghan border on Tuesday night, a development that raised concerns about the already strained American relationship with Pakistan.” Well….DOOOOH!?!?!

And if you believe you have heard it all, John McCain’s proposed model for policy in an ever-problematic Afghanistan is the same awesome plan that has been so successful in Iraq. My God!!! This is the same guy whose Iran policy sounded like “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran,” and who thought it was okay to spend another 100 years in Iraq, even if there were no Americans getting killed, and regardless of whether or not the Iraqis want us there.

McCain is even suggesting we create a “separate Czar” for Afghanistan. He believes one war czar (what happened to the military leadership and the Commander in Chief?) is not enough for both Iraq and Afghanistan. This is really hilarious. When is the last time there was even any reference to the present War Czar appointed by Bush; and now we need two? Perhaps there would be no need to send any more brigades to Afghanistan if Iraq had not become involved in this whole mix in the first place? Yeah right, the Republicans know what they are doing concerning their war on terrorism.

The only possible reason I can think of as to why the Republicans have this reputation for being tough or efficient in war must be that they always talk loud and long about national security and defense, and love to spend more money on the military than all the other nations in the world combined. But incessant talking and spending lots of money obviously do not automatically translate into knowing how to execute a war. Beating up a second-rate military power during the initial phases of war in Kuwait and Iraq is not enough. War necessitates being able to finish what is started, and amazingly, even having plans to do so.

So please, enough of this asinine myth that Republicans know how to wage war and will keep us safer, and Democrats do not, and will not. It’s not only a bunch of crap, but painfully embarrassing as well, not to mention, extremely counterproductive.

Posted by Stephen at 04:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

I incredulously watched TV Monday, subjecting myself to copious amounts of pundit blather from all sides, criticizing General Wesley Clark’s true, I thought, observation that, “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.” I have been saying this myself for almost a year now, believing it was simple common sense. And it was never meant in any way as a slight to John McCain. Imagine my surprise at hearing so many people (such as the Fox News “No-Spin Zone,” definitely an example of how words can be used to mean their opposite) call it a smear of Senator McCain and inferring it somehow denigrated his military service.

Has this nation gone completely mad!?! Have political correctness and hypocrisy reached such lofty levels of dissociation with reality?

Thankfully, General Clark refused to apologize for his statement on MSNBC’s "Verdict." But I was rather disheartened that the Obama campaign believed there was something to apologize for.

This recent firestorm erupted on Sunday during a CBS interview of General Clark by Bob Schieffer. The incendiary fuel for this controversy went like this:

”GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in Air…in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly'

Bob Schieffer: Well

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: He hasn't made those calls, Bob.

Bob Schieffer: Well, well, General, maybe…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So…

Bob Schieffer: Could I just interrupt you. If…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure.

Bob Schieffer: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.”

My first exposure to this so-called controversy was Monday evening while watching Dan Abrams questioning General Clark. Abrams asked, “I think that the part that has really gotten people, which I don't think you have said before was the part about ‘riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down' effectively is not a qualification for president. That's the line that has been the most controversial. Are you sorry you said it?”

In my own mind I immediately answered this question for the General, “Please explain to me Dan, just how being a fighter pilot who is shot down (automatically) qualifies one to be President, exactly?” I would have asked that question and then waited for the answer. I was disappointed that wasn’t the response. People too often go into lengthy explanations on why they said something instead of asking a simple question to make the questioner responsible for explaining the question.

General Clark’s response was more lengthy than my own mental image, but articulate and to the point. The following is just one comment:

“Well, I honor John McCain's character, and as I've said on the show, he's been one of my heroes for a long time. I like John McCain. He's been over to my house and everything. This is about qualifications to be President. That's what this is about. And, by the way, it's also a little bit about the nature of American politics today that a comment like this could be taken out of context the way it was and create such a hullabaloo. I think we ought to get back to the campaign.”

Abrams kept after Clark like a pit bull latched onto its prey:

”Dan Abrams: So I've got to ask you though, this follow-up question – do you stand by your comment that you "don't think that riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification for president." Do you stand by that?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I stand by the comment that when you talk about someone's wartime experience, you have to put that in the context of the level of their service, what that service consisted of and how it matches up to the requirements of the job of the presidency of the United States.

Dan Abrams: So does that mean…again, that you "don't think that riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification for president?"

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think it's an incredible testimony to John McCain's courage that he endured the privations and hardship he did and I think that the American people have always been impressed by that – as I have been impressed by that. But I'm supporting Barack Obama. I think he has judgment. I think he has character and I do think that he has courage. I think he'll be a great Commander in Chief despite the fact that he didn't serve. I think he is a patriot in the truest sense of the word.”

I personally find this whole controversy to be quite ludicrous, unnecessary and like so much of the present political landscape, a complete waste of time and energy. The statement by General Clark was obviously, at least to anyone who is honest as well as intelligent and objective, in no way meant as either a smear or to denigrate John McCain and his military career. It was, in fact, only meant to create a debate on what actually constitute the real qualifications for President of the United States. There is no doubt that military service can enhance a person’s experience, and give them added qualifications for the job, as long as there are many other attributes as well; but by itself, it is just one small part of a very large equation. Being president requires a lot more than simply being Commander in Chief, only one aspect of the job. And, military service alone does not automatically qualify one to be a good Commander in Chief. Our current president is a case in point.

There is no question that the McCain campaign has repeatedly and relentlessly been pounding us with the notion that one very important reason why John McCain should be president is because he is a hero, an ex-Navy fighter pilot and POW in Vietnam for five years. There are all kinds of heroes and examples of heroism in the world, including those equated with militarism. And though Senator McCain’s experiences do exemplify heroism by most standards, and demand our respect, they surely do not automatically qualify him as either a military genius or an administrator qualified to lead us as President. All that remains to be seen, and will depend on a lot more than his military experience and service alone. The fact that he seems so confused on so many issues, and has made the former case against John Kerry, as a flip flopper, pale in comparison to his own almost weekly (sometimes daily) reversals of thought, are evidence that his military service by itself says little about his real qualifications to lead us.

Perhaps there was a time when knowing someone had been a fighter pilot would have dazzled many of us and caused us to believe it alone went a long way to qualify someone for the highest office in the land. Of course, that was before President George W. Bush, also a fighter pilot!

In his defense, General Wesley Clark is a “highly” decorated retired General of the Army (four stars) with a long and distinguished military career, who served in Vietnam, and later as Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) during the Clinton Administration, an assignment which placed him in a position as overall command of NATO military forces in Europe. I can’t honestly accept that anyone in their right mind would genuinely believe he would dis anyone, including John McCain, for having served in the military, and especially for having been shot down and forced to be a POW. It was so obvious this was not the point of his statement(s).

It’s time to move on to real issues, debate and dialogue, and stop getting bogged down in a morass of irrelevance and idiocy at every turn of the political road. It is this kind of chronic absurdity that has led to the current polarization of our nation, as well as the present government, one that very few would honestly argue has served us well.

Posted by Stephen at 12:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBacks (0)