Watch This.

This is well worth watching in full.

If you aren't a member of the WashingtonPost.com, it's free and probably worth signing up for. Just to read Froomkin if nothing else.

Jeff

Been gone.

I haven't really been gone but I've failed to have the initiative to post anything new here.

There has been so much going on though huh?

Our administration continues to drive on with "vigilance", "resolve", and whatever. I don't buy any of it anymore. It's sad really. Someone who still considers themselves a Republican can still harbor such abhorrence for the current Republican administration. The fact that Rumsfeld is still employed, that Bolton has been nominated to the UN, and that Iraq is still directly linked to the events of 9-11 is just sad.

And then London. What I loved (not really) to hear was that our own trains and bus stations have been put on Orange Alert. Not due to any specific threat though.

Neither was London prior to the bombings.

The "war" on terror is not working.

Duh.

Duh.

North Korea, not Iran... morons.

Sigh.

I feel kind of depressed. Despite the activity of my own life, the path of current events doesn’t escape me for long. I’m not at all happy about the media, the Middle East, and our government’s involvement in either.

It’s all a bunch of hooey and if you disagree with me then you are either in the media or stupid uninformed. Maybe that’s too harsh. My parents, my family, they are all uniformed and because I love them it makes it hard for me to confront them. Some sort of military strike against Iran seems unavoidable at this point. No, I don’t think we should, but I think the press has done a good job of warming up the public to the idea just as the executive branch has requested. It won’t be long now and heck; we reelected him after Iraq so that must mean we should take on Iran next?

I do think it runs that deep. I do think that propaganda is so deeply infected within our media and in society that few of us can even detect it anymore. No, I don’t live in the “back hills”, the one gun I own is older than any living relative of mine and you are probably misinterpreting what I’m saying because I’m too lazy to lay it all out.

Sometimes it just feels good to talk about it, even if it’s only here.

Jeff

CNN.com - Bush: 'Sometimes, words have consequences' - Jan 14, 2005

CNN.com - Bush: 'Sometimes, words have consequences' - Jan 14, 2005

"I don't know if you'd call that a confession, a regret, something."

What then would it be? Anyone can make a strong statement. A strong person can admit when they are wrong.

How about this crap. I was so distressed by all of this that I actually posted on this site again.

Crap
Armstrong Williams is a puppet. I'm sure there are others. Take him down, but please, please, don't forget that he is just a puppet. Go after the puppet master...

North Korean troops to be deployed in Iraq?

I had an idea tonight as we were discussing the situation in Iraq at a Christmas party. The people involved are worthy of mention since they are all Bush backers and if not in the military they are working for government contractors for the military.

They were all discussing the mistake of not having enough troops in Iraq to handle the difficult situation. As a percentage of the US population and for that matter the total number of troops, what we had deployed in Europe and Japan during WWII was a lot more than we have now.

I suggested (and hereby copyright) that we should give whatever financial assistance the North Koreans require in addition to additional military protection and cooperation for a mere 25% of their standing army's presence in Iraq. We’ll provide the transportation and training they just need to drop their nuclear weapons program and we’ll send over Wal-Mart and Starbucks to get their economy going.

This will boost troop levels over in Iraq by 160% and reduce the strain on our existing forces who are having their tours extended and having to call up reserves and such.

Everyone was all for my idea.

Jeff

CNN.com - Germany plans air support for Sudan - Nov 17, 2004

CNN.com - Germany plans air support for Sudan - Nov 17, 2004

I just don't feel a sense of urgency here and I feel there should be one. Much more so than in Iran. I can't help but think that Iran is the next goal.

Again, my problem with this is that for one, there are much bigger humanitarian and oppression problems in the world than in Iraq. When it comes to threats from WMD's, North Korea is jumping up and down yelling at the top of their lungs, "We have nuclear weapons!!!".

If we are not concerned about the real "imminent" threats and 70,000 dead since March is no big loss, than why sacrifice 40 American soldiers to take one Iraqi City? Please, someone, tell me what we accomplished there on the graves of those brave Americans beside more enraged Iraqis ready to join the insurgents (most of whom left well ahead of the American siege)?

Jeff

CNN.com - Troops find hostage 'slaughterhouses' in Falluja - Nov 10, 2004

CNN.com - Troops find hostage 'slaughterhouses' in Falluja - Nov 10, 2004

I really do wish I could find something positive to say about the Falluja assault, but I just can't seem to. I am glad they have found one area used for killings. They did not however find any prisoners or executioners.

As I read other articles and blogs I do find some support for this assault. It is not uncommon for them to resort to the same argument: Saddam killed thousands of his own people. I don’t doubt he was evil or that he did these horrible things. What I have a problem with is why we have spent over a year-and-a half and well over a thousand of our own soldier’s lives in this country and the Administration is still determined to reign in control of every corner at (what seems to be) any cost.

While the build up to the attack on March 21st 2003 took months if not years, in the end it was about 15 days before hand when the President gave his first hint at an ultimatum: that UN inspections were going nowhere and Saddam needed to step down. Bush gave an official 48 hours of notice for him to leave the country and then the full attack commenced.

In 1993, what was to be a 90-minute mission left 18 of our soldiers’ dead and 84 wounded in. The US pulled out of Somalia shortly afterwards.

In 1994 the entire world stood by and watched while an estimated 800,000 people in Rwanda were killed in just over 100 days.

If we are concerned about brutal regimes and genocide then we should apply our reaction equally across the world. Now, tensions in Sudan have left 1.8 million homeless and thousands dead already. Few doubt that the US has sufficient resources to respond effectively to this problem. I doubt we will respond at all.

On the other hand, if US public opinion could be swayed to support it, we would invade Iran just as soon as possible.

I just don’t think our actions are being guided by the logic that we use to support them. I think that priorities have been set and the logic to support them is generated as we go.

Jeff

CNN.com - Iraqi briefed on Falluja plans missing - Nov 6, 2004

CNN.com - Iraqi briefed on Falluja plans missing - Nov 6, 2004

What do you say here? If anyone happened to read my previous posting, I think this goes right along with what I was trying to convey.

I don't think this attack is going to pretty. I think the advance notice to both the inhabitants of Faluja and through the media is just to soften the blow.

Jeff

Falluja Attack

I’m rather annoyed with all of the talk about the upcoming attack on Falluja. This (in my opinion) is blatant media sponsored propaganda. I don’t think the media is even suspecting the role that they are playing.

Let’s just discuss a few of the headlines and comments I’ve seen so far.

Straight from Allawi himself.

Do you hear about any complaints of oppression and suppression of rights by the people of Falluja? Doubtful. It’s unlikely you’ll hear anything from them directly at all. The only people that aren’t welcome there are American and coalition forces. That would include the Iraqi army as well. There is no intention to liberate Falluja at all, I think what they really mean is that we are going to sacrifice a lot of our own soldiers, even more newly trained Iraqi soldiers, and a whole bunch more insurgents and terrorists within Falluja. I don’t think anyone can tell the difference between an insurgent terrorist and a civilian from 100 or even 50 yards either. This is all about a change in power. Liberation will consist of a removal of all arms and attempting to put a coalition guided government and security force in place. Don’t take this as strictly sarcasm, I’m just concerned that the press has been suckered into building public support of our troops (completely legitimate but...) about to embark on an offensive attack that will help the administration only. The American control over Falluja really won’t accomplish anything other than fear and hate.

We will lose 10’s possibly even hundreds in this attack to only create hundreds if not thousands of new enemies among those left to sift through the remains of their loved ones.

A quote from the above article I found ironic:

“Marines will work to surprise the insurgents by moving in quickly with infantry, tanks and attack helicopters.”

Luckily, the insurgents and terrorists within Falluja don’t have access to CNN, Fox, The New York Times, BBC, or any other major news network; otherwise they might anticipate it and prepare ahead of time. Good thing for our troops the government and media are behind them all the way. I just hope none of them have binoculars or anything. The urban warfare training going on just outside of the city might make them suspicious also.

I don’t mean to make fun of anyone. But we are talking about people’s lives here. Not just our own American soldiers but innocent families in Iraq. These are families who did not ask to be “liberated”. They just want to live their lives as normally possible with as many living friends and family as they had prior to being liberated. That is not going to happen. I doubt they’ll be cheering and waving at the our brave and tattered troops after they accomplish this mission either.

Good luck to our troops being sent into harms way.

Jeff

Oops

Luckily, I don't gamble either.

As a Republican who went through all of the mental anguish of actually voting for Kerry, I too was very disappointed in the results. I think that the Democratic Party failed in two main areas: understanding the number of people out there that when motivated to actually vote, they would vote for Bush. Secondly, that Kerry wasn’t a strong enough candidate. I think that there were a lot more moderate Republicans like myself who paid very close attention to the Democratic primaries and were terribly disappointed. Dean didn’t impress me either but I would have backed Wesley Clark all the way. I’ll admit he was probably more of a Republican loosely disguised as a Democrat, but he had the backing of the Clinton’s. That is something Kerry didn’t even get until last week.

Just a thought, but I think Clark could have faired much better.

Jeff

Election Results

If I were a betting man I’d say Kerry will win. It will be by a slight margin of no more than 5% of the popular vote, but a clear victory in the Electoral College.

Unfortunately though, there will be counting of absentee ballots and lawsuits that will prevent a official winner until sometime next week.

But I’m not a betting man.

Jeff

Undecided still.

I talked to my sister about possibly not voting for Bush today. She was shocked of course but as I guessed couldn’t provide me with anything that shocked me back to a party voting Republican. I don’t like talking politics with family. They are who they are and even though their views might frustrate me at times, they are not the reason that I love them.

Still, it made me realize something that I hadn’t come to fully recognize. I don’t want to vote for Bush simply because of the situation in Iraq and the US’s image on an international basis. I don’t like any of Kerry’s domestic policies and other than talking tough on introducing incentives to keep companies from outsourcing, he does nothing for me. I’m smart enough and close enough to losing my job to Chinese engineers that I know it will take a lot more than tax changes to keep technical jobs here. It will require a world market change and outsourcing won’t likely decrease for decades to come.

So, do I still vote for Kerry simply because he isn’t Bush and will have a better chance of doing the least further harm in Iraq? Or do I not vote at all? I can’t in good conscience vote for Bush again. I really don’t think that anyone who is really willing to do the whole “walk in another persons shoes for a mile” can still vote for Bush with a clear conscience. Maybe I’m going too far there but despite what the media says there are still undecided voters and I’m one of them.

To vote for Kerry or to not vote at all, that is my question.

Jeff

Electoral College

This is what it will all come down to.

CNN.com - Putin urges voters to back Bush - Oct 18, 2004

CNN.com - Putin urges voters to back Bush - Oct 18, 2004

I found this article a little confusing. At first it seemed that Putin, whom I greatly admire, was flip-flopping a bit of his own. But now I think its more of a bolder than it seems statement that Bush is not capable (Putin has never really seemed to mesh well with Bush), although we support him (Russia acknowledges US supremacy), terrorism will flourish without Bush as president (support our efforts in Chechnya), and we’d really rather that Kerry were president if the whole Iraq thing weren’t happening (reality).

Okay, I suppose I didn’t summarize it quite like he did, but I think it’s definitely more accurate.

Jeff

Parents and Politics

My parents asked me what I though of the last night’s debate. I’ve been avoiding political discussions with them over the last couple months. We’ve always been able to side with each other and especially with my mom, I’ve been able to re-assure her of various events.

Now that I’m leaning Kerry, I’ve been a bit worried about talking with them about this. Not that for an instant they would care any less for me, but it would be an awkward moment. I told them my thoughts about last night’s debate and even included my preference for Kerry on a few topics. My mom surprised me the most in that her biggest concern was that; whoever wins will hopefully win by enough margin that we don’t have to wait weeks for the Supreme Court to decide the outcome.

She is probably looking forward to having a Democrat back in office. It is so much easier to complain about a president that you didn’t vote for. That is very likely the reason that I am so hesitant to definitively say that I am voting for Kerry.

Jeff

3rd debate

I’m now a decidedly undecided voter. This final debate really didn’t help push me to a final decision.

I was leaning more towards voting for Kerry prior to this debate but a few things he said helped me to remember why it took me so long to come around to even considering voting for him in the first place.

 He really lost me with his stance on Affirmative Action. This is a policy that has directly affected me, I’ve studied it, and I don’t want to vote for a president that supports it.
 The second area where Kerry disappointed me was on his plans for the economy. I don’t think he has a realistic plan and is willing to make a lot of promises right now just win votes.
 I did like Kerry’s suggestions to reduce outsourcing of US jobs although from what I’ve read his record doesn’t reflect a lot of effort on his part to stop it in the first place.

Bush did much better this time around, I’d have to wager it was his best of the three debates.

 He actually won back a little of my attention when he discussed his economic views. I think he has done a good job and it will still take a few years for most of his changes to be fully realized.
 Where he lost me, was jumping on the question about Roe vs. Wade before the moderator had finished. This says a lot about his character even more so now that he has done it in each debate.
 I don’t like his plan for attempting to quell outsourcing. He has no plan, he thinks what we are doing right now is working. If improved education and re-training (Greenspan agrees) were the answer to keeping jobs in the US, then we wouldn’t have a bunch of unemployed engineers, programmers, and technicians. There are not a bunch of companies out there trying to hire people and complaining about the lack of a skilled workforce. In fact most of the time the employers in these fields have the luxury of picking among lots of qualified candidates and don’t have to offer inflated salaries to get the best talent.

I’ll figure out what I’m going to do soon.

Jeff

Bush's Bulge

I’ve come across a couple articles discussing the apparent “bulge” between the shoulder blades of George W. Bush during both debates. I noticed this myself watching both of them. I did not however reach the conclusion that the majority of interested people seem to be reaching. I figured he was wearing a rather sleek and hopefully inconspicuous Kevlar jacket. I figured it was a bulletproof vest and supposed that he probably needs it. Taking out an internationally unpopular president during a debate would probably be a feat any terrorist would dream of.

I went as far as to assume that Kerry was wearing one too, but being taller and lanky, it was not as noticeable. I left it at that though.

Now, it’s becoming a rather hot topic and tomorrow is the final debate. Here are my thoughts:

1. If it were a wire, then Bush would have performed much better in the first debate.
2. If it were a wire, then Bush would have performed much better in the second debate.

Enough said?

Seriously though, if he was wired and had that sort of advantage the turnout of the debates should have been much different. Tomorrow’s debate will tell though for sure. If he has the same bulge and performs within reasonable expectation (of those not suspecting he was wired) then I think that should be proof enough. It is a flak jacket and they are worried about him getting shot on national television.

Conspiracy theories are always interesting and the good ones rarely completely disputable. I hope the bulge still shows tomorrow.

Jeff

What party?

I received a message on my answering machine today that was of some interest. It was from a firefighter supporting our Republican incumbent senatorial candidate. He played an unintelligible audio blurb from the Democratic challenger and then went off into a rampage about how supporting the challenger was a direct attack to all of the firefighter and law enforcement individuals who died in 9-11. I replayed the message several times to attempt to decipher the quote from the alternative candidate. No luck, so I figure the challenging candidate must be a communist-terrorist-civil society-disrespecting bastard.

Never mind, I’m now voting for Bush again and might as well just push the Republican party-ticket button in the booth.

I’m quickly becoming disgusted with what I still consider my own party. At what point do I decide that I’m no longer in that party? Or that the people who are supposedly in charge of this party are just complete morons? I think I know the answers but I’m just a little, no very, disappointed that it’s reached this point.

Jeff

CNN.com - Bush campaign to base ad on Kerry terror quote - Oct 10, 2004

CNN.com - Bush campaign to base ad on Kerry terror quote - Oct 10, 2004

This is simply frustrating. I was just complaining about this very subject yesterday also. This is a blatant misuse of Kerry’s statements. If this is truly what the Bush campaign is reducing themselves to then it will only hurt them more. If any Bush backer happens to read an article like this and walks away from it thinking that Kerry actually likens terrorism to prostitution or organized crime then they should turn in their voter cards and get their signs.

Mugs and keychains are also available.

Jeff

Fact Checking:

Some people are concerned about checking to see which candidate has stuck to telling the truth the most. It’s sad that we have to do this at all but we do. I think that in most cases candidates and politicians generally tend to either exaggerate the truth, take quotes out of context, and often times they just say the wrong thing. I don’t think any presidential candidate intends on lying, but it sure does happen a lot.

The real issue at hand is whether or not voters are checking the facts. I would also argue that once a voter has decided to back a particular candidate, most of their fact-checking time is spent making sure the other candidate doesn’t screw up. They don’t often check the credibility of the candidate they support. The main reason for this is partisan politics.

I’m all about informed voting. I wish MTV and all the other "Get out the vote" supporters would change their message to "read a newspaper" or "question the campaigns" or "if you don’t really care, then please don’t vote". Once someone actually takes the time to get some background information and then seriously take into consideration what a potential candidate is saying is the only time when they should vote.

I’d wager that the close to %50 of the voters out there choose the "party" ticket when voting. No, consideration of individual candidate but simply Republican or Democrat. That is so wrong. That is also the reason that people don’t check the facts. I can personally relate to why I understand why this is so difficult. I’m a registered Republican who voted for Bush in 2000. If I could have chosen the winner of the Democratic nomination for president, it would not have been Kerry. Still, I will probably vote for Kerry on November 2nd. That is not easy, but I find myself checking the facts of both candidates at least.

Jeff

2nd Debate

I almost forgot about the debates but was able to catch the last hour’s worth. I thought that generally, both candidates were very well prepared and overall it was a very good debate.

Presentation:

Bush seemed more comfortable and adjusted his reactions to Kerry’s attacks appropriately. He used humor well and if he weren’t running the country during such a trying time would be an excellent entertainer. His responses were good although not usually very well on target to the question posed.

John Kerry also did well and other than the one moment I noticed of stuttering and lost thought he was very composed. He did a better job of directly answering the topic at hand with the exception of using time from a new question to finish off a previous thought.

Subject matter:

Bush is notorious for generalizing his response to slide over a very specific question with a “big picture” answer. When the lady asked him to name three occasions when he was wrong and how he handled it, he gave (what I thought was) his closest response yet to admitting that his actions in Iraq may have been misguided. He then stated his position on Iraq quite well compared to the previous debate. He didn’t however, answer the question at hand. He bashed on a few of his appointments (luckily without naming them) but didn’t address how he went about correcting for them.

I’m beginning to respect Kerry a little more on some issues that I previously differed with him about. Neither candidate ever addressed with any specific plan how to actually reduce the deficit (even with the moderator bringing this point back up twice). They both did a very good job of clarifying their plans for taxes and Kerry is committed if he is elected. Kerry was able to answer several of his stances on various topics with very specific and detailed answers. Unfortunately, I think that most people probably missed these on both sides. When Kerry gets technical, the lawyer in him comes out clearly. This is where Bush can appeal to his supporters in a way Kerry cannot; he gives them the answer they want to hear. I want to hear that there will be a happy ending in Iraq. Bush has been saying this for close to a year-and-a-half and now I’d gladly welcome the dry lawyer approach.

In the end:

I did miss the first half but I’m betting that Kerry will walk away as the overall winner again. This time it will not be a clear victory by any means because Bush was very well prepared and in his best form. I think that the distinguishing differences between the two are that Kerry was able to layout very specific details on some issues. Bush, while I’m sure was wildly appealing to his core supporters, came off as too general in his responses. His use of humor was good but really had no relevance to the debate. We know his character; it’s Kerry’s character that many people still aren’t familiar with.

Despite some anchorman’s commentary that "the undecided voters should have no reason to be undecided any longer", I’m still undecided. Okay I'm not but I’m just trying to convince myself that while I now secretly support Kerry, I might even vote for him too.

Jeff

Terrorist Economy

I hear a lot of talk about the potential for another terrorist-strike on US soil before the election. The news is always passing on the latest warnings and it’s something I commonly hear people talk about also. In fact, just today here in New Mexico our own FAA building was barricaded and will continue to be until after the election. FAA Threat

Personally, I feel that another terrorist strike here in America is unavoidable. It doesn’t matter what the election outcome is or how hard we try to prevent it someone will eventually succeed. What really will matter is the scope of the event. If it is anything on the level of 9-11 than the effects will certainly be felt on our economy as well as on our hearts. This gives me great concern. No, it’s not just my concern for my own recovering 401K either.

What really bothers me is why it affects us financially at all. When the stock market opened after 9-11, it was essentially a crash. Everyone was hurt, scared, and trying to protect their own and their loved ones interests. Was there though, any justifiable reason for the market to fall? No, it was just the catalytic event that really brought the current financial situation into reality. I’d argue that it was an exaggeration at that.

This should be a whole separate posting but I think the events leading up to the recession of 2001 were set in motion long before Bush even took office. Please don’t think I’m bashing on Clinton because I don’t think a president can take full credit for the state of the economy at a given moment. The boom of the 1990’s was artificially high and had to be adjusted eventually. A new president, a few big companies finally getting busted for fixing their books and a devastating attack on our country all contributed to our economic troubles leading up to and after 9-11.

My beef is that a terrorist attack affects our economy at all. Why should it? In the case of 9-11 Wallstreet necessarily had to be shut down. Did it have to crash though? The only evidence I can offer up that an attack shouldn’t affect on the market is this bin Laden Rumor Why should the rumor of Bin Laden’s capture artificially raise the market? The rumor was false the gains were not. What bothers me the most I suppose is that the stock market is essentially an entity that acts like an irrational and emotional child. That is also why no one person can tell you how to make millions and always be right, why millionaires are created overnight and then broke the next day.

I don’t want to contribute to the problem but I am currently resisting the urge to move all of my aggressive investments to a money market fund until the election is officially over.

Jeff

WMD's

Today a big blow came to the Bush administration in the form of the top U.S. arms report. It basically states that Iraq was not an imminent threat regarding WMD’s. Saddam was more concerned about threats from Iran and Israel then a U.S. invasion. He held out in hopes that America would respect Iraq’s sovereignty as an oil-rich Middle East nation. Saddam lost a pretty big poker hand there. I guess Bush wasn’t bluffing after all.

It’s too bad though. I didn’t necessarily expect anything different to come out of this report, but I suppose I was hoping for a little bit more. If this doesn’t ultimately swing the tide in Kerry’s favor then it will just serve as an instrument of futility for any of Bush’s 2nd term foreign policy initiatives.

One of the most telling statements I picked up on in this report was not regarding the perceived Iraqi threat in 2003, but in 1991. Remember the big concern about Saddam using chemical weapons? For those who don’t know, our military was horribly under prepared for a chemical attack during the Gulf War. The number of troops actually immunized was minimal. To make it worse, those who did get the immunization shots usually didn’t have the recommended number of follow up shots yet. It takes several months to get safely protected from small pox or anthrax.

Bush Senior is sometimes criticized for liberating Kuwait and then not pursuing Saddam’s battered army into Baghdad. In recent interviews with Saddam he says that he was ready and willing to use chemical weapons against a complete U.S. invasion. Everyone knew he did have chemical weapons at the time and I think W’s dad knew about the risk. That’s why we didn’t get him then.

Through hindsight we can always see the right choice. I believe Bush is going to get put through the ringer for a while on this one. I don’t know that it will cost him the election just yet but unless he does produce some “October surprise”, this will prove to be a very close race.

Jeff

Election Day

I’ve been fretting the upcoming election since about this time last year. The time when the WMD’s failed to show and the attacks on our troops continued to increase. The excuses and justifications continued but the promised results failed to materialize and the tragedies accelerated.

I defended our (American) actions last year both in Switzerland and China. People I met in both places were astonished by our actions but I assured them that our government would not invade a country without justification.

A year later, I regret the advice and reassurance I gave, because not only was I misled by the intelligence, but also so was our Commander-in-Chief. Maybe it was the other way around, now I’m not really sure. I voted for Bush in 2000 and had no doubts about it. Now, only a few years later, I find myself sober from the sadly exhilarating high of 9-11. George W. was the perfect fit for the days and weeks following one of the most devastating days of my life. He led, guided, and helped to strengthen the resolve of just about everyone in this country following that tragedy. The approval polls showed this as he received record-breaking ratings. I also think that it would have taken a complete moron to screw up as president after such a devastating event. The invasion of Afghanistan, while many may not have approved, few made a point to object. Then, not so long afterwards, came this push to invade Iraq.

I first noticed my change of heart when several prominent Democrats such as Lieberman and Gephardt began calling for removing Saddam Hussain from power. It surprised me that many Democratic leaders were calling for the ousting of Saddam. I was uncomfortable about the idea at the time given our trying commitment we were already dedicated to in Afghanistan. I never felt comfortable about invading Iraq form the start. I always figured that we have reasonable people in our intelligence agencies and we would not pursue such an endeavor as this unless there was a definitive threat. I also assumed that at the risk of exposing sources or potential threats, that the general public would not be informed.

Then it all happened, and our troops, friends, fathers, mothers, and neighbors were there and fighting. It happened so quickly that the whole world was stunned, on both sides. How could Iraq fall so easily? American military power was never so prominently showcased as completely superior. Soon, George W. was co-piloting a plane, landing on a carrier, and declaring the major fighting to be over.

If it would have only ended there.

Now, I dread, but numbingly find myself reading about the deaths of tens, or hundreds of soldiers, insurgents, and civilians’ everyday. The closer American troops come to controlling an area the sooner we can expect to hear about a major uprising. Soon after we pull out and declare the area a "no-go" zone. Everywhere and every day, we leave behind (whether the body is actually left behind or not) a soldier. The creed of "no soldier is left behind" is becoming mundane and more importantly extremely dangerous for those left alive. The number of coalition dead doesn’t even compare to the losses on the Iraqi side. How a few hundred bodies littered in the street are separated into "insurgent" or "civilian" categories I don't know.

In Vietnam we sent "advisors", initially to quell a quickly disintegrating situation. They eventually were followed by actual troops and before we knew it and without a declaration, the US was at war. The war became very unpopular and has been a point of disagreement that continues to play prominently even in the current election. To make a long story short, it can easily be construed that our government was able to launch a successful war campaign that made it logistically impossible to protest the war and support our troops at the same time. It is difficult to even conceive that the war protesters of the time might have actually had no qualms with the troops fighting and dying in Vietnam, but just with the premise of the war itself. Did you know that some have found no evidence that any returning soldier from Vietnam was ever spit upon on arrival? Just think of the implications and how did those rumors that start anyway?

http://www.rlg.org/annmtg/lembcke99.html

It was not much different during the gulf war, if you were against the war, then you must be against the soldiers. While the way these ideas are spread may seem subtle and almost undetectable, the ramifications are bigger than anyone really wants to know.


So now. I need to decide whom to vote for in just a few weeks. I backed and voted for Bush in 2000. I had no regrets at the end of 2001. From 2002 and beyond though, I have wondered what would happen in 2004. Wesley Clark (a Republican cleverly disguised as a Democrat) didn’t make it through the primaries so I figured I’d have to back Bush again. Now, even though John Kerry has made it this far, and I feel so little confidence in him, it scares me that I find myself hoping he might win. I might even have to add my lone vote to help.

Don’t think that I feel John Kerry is the best candidate for leading this great country. I have looked at his record over the years and I can see where people might refer to him as "flipper". However, the damage to our international relations from our current administration has been so severe that I am willing to vote for a candidate simply because he is not the incumbent president. I think that we will be so much more successful in anything America does on a global scale so long as George W. is not president in 2005. Even if he continues to push the exact same exit strategy in Iraq that Bush is currently proposing, it won’t matter. John Kerry won’t be Bush and that will make a world of difference.



Jeff