GameTavern - Kerry's the one

GameTavern (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/index.php)

- Happy Hour (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=12)

- - Kerry's the one (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9945)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102304W.shtml

Quote:

Kerry’s the One
By Scott McConnell
The American Conservative

November 8, 2004 Issue

Unfortunately, this election does not offer traditional conservatives an easy or natural choice and has left our editors as split as our readership. In an effort to deepen our readers’ and our own understanding of the options before us, we’ve asked several of our editors and contributors to make “the conservative case” for their favored candidate. Their pieces, plus Taki’s column closing out this issue, constitute TAC’s endorsement. - The American Conservative Editors

There is little in John Kerry’s persona or platform that appeals to conservatives. The flip-flopper charge - the centerpiece of the Republican campaign against Kerry - seems overdone, as Kerry’s contrasting votes are the sort of baggage any senator of long service is likely to pick up. (Bob Dole could tell you all about it.) But Kerry is plainly a conventional liberal and no candidate for a future edition of Profiles in Courage. In my view, he will always deserve censure for his vote in favor of the Iraq War in 2002.

But this election is not about John Kerry. If he were to win, his dearth of charisma would likely ensure him a single term. He would face challenges from within his own party and a thwarting of his most expensive initiatives by a Republican Congress. Much of his presidency would be absorbed by trying to clean up the mess left to him in Iraq. He would be constrained by the swollen deficits and a ripe target for the next Republican nominee.

It is, instead, an election about the presidency of George W. Bush. To the surprise of virtually everyone, Bush has turned into an important president, and in many ways the most radical America has had since the 19th century. Because he is the leader of America’s conservative party, he has become the Left’s perfect foil - its dream candidate. The libertarian writer Lew Rockwell has mischievously noted parallels between Bush and Russia’s last tsar, Nicholas II: both gained office as a result of family connections, both initiated an unnecessary war that shattered their countries’ budgets. Lenin needed the calamitous reign of Nicholas II to create an opening for the Bolsheviks.

Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal - Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can’t be found to do it - and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.

During the campaign, few have paid attention to how much the Bush presidency has degraded the image of the United States in the world. Of course there has always been “anti-Americanism.” After the Second World War many European intellectuals argued for a “Third Way” between American-style capitalism and Soviet communism, and a generation later Europe’s radicals embraced every ragged “anti-imperialist” cause that came along. In South America, defiance of “the Yanqui” always draws a crowd. But Bush has somehow managed to take all these sentiments and turbo-charge them. In Europe and indeed all over the world, he has made the United States despised by people who used to be its friends, by businessmen and the middle classes, by moderate and sensible liberals. Never before have democratic foreign governments needed to demonstrate disdain for Washington to their own electorates in order to survive in office. The poll numbers are shocking. In countries like Norway, Germany, France, and Spain, Bush is liked by about seven percent of the populace. In Egypt, recipient of huge piles of American aid in the past two decades, some 98 percent have an unfavorable view of the United States. It’s the same throughout the Middle East.

Bush has accomplished this by giving the U.S. a novel foreign-policy doctrine under which it arrogates to itself the right to invade any country it wants if it feels threatened. It is an American version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, but the latter was at least confined to Eastern Europe. If the analogy seems extreme, what is an appropriate comparison when a country manufactures falsehoods about a foreign government, disseminates them widely, and invades the country on the basis of those falsehoods? It is not an action that any American president has ever taken before. It is not something that “good” countries do. It is the main reason that people all over the world who used to consider the United States a reliable and necessary bulwark of world stability now see us as a menace to their own peace and security.

These sentiments mean that as long as Bush is president, we have no real allies in the world, no friends to help us dig out from the Iraq quagmire. More tragically, they mean that if terrorists succeed in striking at the United States in another 9/11-type attack, many in the world will not only think of the American victims but also of the thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed and maimed by American armed forces. The hatred Bush has generated has helped immeasurably those trying to recruit anti-American terrorists - indeed his policies are the gift to terrorism that keeps on giving, as the sons and brothers of slain Iraqis think how they may eventually take their own revenge. Only the seriously deluded could fail to see that a policy so central to America’s survival as a free country as getting hold of loose nuclear materials and controlling nuclear proliferation requires the willingness of foreign countries to provide full, 100 percent co-operation. Making yourself into the world’s most hated country is not an obvious way to secure that help.

I’ve heard people who have known George W. Bush for decades and served prominently in his father’s administration say that he could not possibly have conceived of the doctrine of pre-emptive war by himself, that he was essentially taken for a ride by people with a pre-existing agenda to overturn Saddam Hussein. Bush’s public performances plainly show him to be a man who has never read or thought much about foreign policy. So the inevitable questions are: who makes the key foreign-policy decisions in the Bush presidency, who controls the information flow to the president, how are various options are presented?

The record, from published administration memoirs and in-depth reporting, is one of an administration with a very small group of six or eight real decision-makers, who were set on war from the beginning and who took great pains to shut out arguments from professionals in the CIA and State Department and the U.S. armed forces that contradicted their rosy scenarios about easy victory. Much has been written about the neoconservative hand guiding the Bush presidency - and it is peculiar that one who was fired from the National Security Council in the Reagan administration for suspicion of passing classified material to the Israeli embassy and another who has written position papers for an Israeli Likud Party leader have become key players in the making of American foreign policy.

But neoconservatism now encompasses much more than Israel-obsessed intellectuals and policy insiders. The Bush foreign policy also surfs on deep currents within the Christian Right, some of which see unqualified support of Israel as part of a godly plan to bring about Armageddon and the future kingdom of Christ. These two strands of Jewish and Christian extremism build on one another in the Bush presidency - and President Bush has given not the slightest indication he would restrain either in a second term. With Colin Powell’s departure from the State Department looming, Bush is more than ever the “neoconian candidate.” The only way Americans will have a presidency in which neoconservatives and the Christian Armageddon set are not holding the reins of power is if Kerry is elected.

If Kerry wins, this magazine will be in opposition from Inauguration Day forward. But the most important battles will take place within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. A Bush defeat will ignite a huge soul-searching within the rank-and-file of Republicandom: a quest to find out how and where the Bush presidency went wrong. And it is then that more traditional conservatives will have an audience to argue for a conservatism informed by the lessons of history, based in prudence and a sense of continuity with the American past - and to make that case without a powerful White House pulling in the opposite direction.

George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies - a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky’s concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies - temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election - are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans “won’t do.” This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support.

Re: Kerry's the one

I will admit that that article makes a very valid point in saying that if Bush loses, it will probably bring a revolution in the Republican party.

Too bad it had so many fallacies and exagerations.

Quote:

The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S.

Iraq was a threat, and Bush said it was from the very beginning, along with Iran and North Korea. If anyone actually reads the 9/11 report instead of just listening to the one line played on evening news channels, they would know that Saddam had direct ties with Al Quada, gave money to these organizations, and housed them.

Also, on weapons of mass destruction. Anyone who believes that Saddam really didn't want to get weapons is not thinking clearly. Sarin gas missles have been found buried in Iraq by coalition forces. Spy sattelite pictures confirm a large number of trucks moving from Iraq to Syria in the time before war broke out. But I suppose because inspectors, who were being told were to look by Saddam's officials, didn't find anything, that nothing was there.

Quote:

the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations

Refering to Halliburton, no doubt. The article doesn't mention that Halliburton was the only qualified company that applied to take on some of the rebuilding effort in Iraq because it was the only company capable of doing some of the jobs nessesary. But, no, since Cheney was ONCE head of the company, it must be a handout by the administration.

Quote:

the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children

This article suggests that the entire deficit is a result of the war. That is a ridiculous statement, seeing as the majority of the budgit deficit is a result of the recent resession that actually began at the end of the Clinton administration.

Huh? What? It couldn't have anything to do with Clinton!?!

Quote:

the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor

According to studies, the top 20% of wage earners pay 80% of federal taxes. But, somehow, people still think that Bush only gives tax cutes to the rich.

Lets look at it in a hypothetical sense. Say you have your joe schmo earning $30,000 a year and you have your wealthier guy earning $300,000 a year. Joe schmo gets a tax cut that equals, say, $1,000 and your wealthier guy gets back $2,500. Now, people who don't know better look at that and say, "Hey, why does the wealthy guy get back more?" when in reality, he is paying a much higher amount of money back to the government in the first place. His percentage back compared to how much he pays in is smaller than joe schmo's percentage, but it is just a bigger number because he pays more in the first place.

Now obviously these aren't real numbers, but I hope that makes a point.

Quote:

Bush has accomplished this by giving the U.S. a novel foreign-policy doctrine under which it arrogates to itself the right to invade any country it wants if it feels threatened. It is an American version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, but the latter was at least confined to Eastern Europe. If the analogy seems extreme, what is an appropriate comparison when a country manufactures falsehoods about a foreign government, disseminates them widely, and invades the country on the basis of those falsehoods? It is not an action that any American president has ever taken before. It is not something that “good” countries do. It is the main reason that people all over the world who used to consider the United States a reliable and necessary bulwark of world stability now see us as a menace to their own peace and security.

First off, we didn't just invade Iraq because it was preceived as a threat. We haven't invaded North Korea or Iran because it was perceived a threat. No, we went into Iraq because the administration feared that sanctions by the UN weren't working, and in the aftermath of 9/11, feared the dangers of another attack that might be preventable with pre-emption.

Anyways, I hope I have made my point that this article has a few issues, but once again, it makes some good points. I fear, however, that it doesn't take into account how much damage can happen if Kerry gets elected.

I believe that Bush has a better plan at keeping us safe and I think his economic plan is starting to take hold get us back out of resession, so that is why I am voting for him.

Re: Kerry's the one

well stated... i wish more people at least had an idea of what you are talking about.

most people just hate bush because the media tells em to

Re: Kerry's the one

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackmane

Also, on weapons of mass destruction. Anyone who believes that Saddam really didn't want to get weapons is not thinking clearly. Sarin gas missles have been found buried in Iraq by coalition forces. Spy sattelite pictures confirm a large number of trucks moving from Iraq to Syria in the time before war broke out.

I don't think it's any doubt that Saddam wanted to get weapons of mass destruction... But at the time he didn't, and wasn't able to... Didn't they make some sort of report just recently that said that? That yes it was interested in getting them, but didn't have any and hasn't since a number of years ago?

How old were those Sarin gas missles?

The trucks, obviously a bit more suspicious... He was moving something out of Iraq (unless what he was moving were empty trucks :p), but it could have been anything...

As for him being a threat in the first place, if he acquired WMD, did he actually have the means to attack the US with them? If he channeled them off to terrorist groups, would they?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackmane

And how can you be sure of that? Depending on your view of the situation, that could go against Bush'n'co... Iraq was a threat because Saddam wanted weapons (of course, at the time we thought he had them, but since then people have been saying even without the weapons he was worth taking out), North Korea and Iran are a threat because they have them... But we invade Iraq?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackmane

But, no, since Cheney was ONCE head of the company, it must be a handout by the administration.

And since you're a Bush-supporter, you figure there couldn't possibly be any connection... Although I personally havn't payed much attention to the Halliburton shindig...

I believe keeping the country safe should not be as big of an issue in this election as it is, and yet it's probably why 90% of the people backing Bush (if you'll excuse me pulling a number out of my ass) are doing so...

This country was very safe from outside attacks to begin with... But after one attack (one major attack) succeeded, people have become paranoid...

Remember a couple years ago... "Summer of the shark attacks oooOoOooo"... A few shark attacks happen and all of a sudden a bunch of people are like OMG SHARKS! THE THREAT IS FOR SOME REASON GREATER THAN BEFORE! WE ARE NOT SAFE!...

Only in that situation, the Bush administration didn't make a color-coded alert system as to how high your risk of being attacked by a shark was... Or constantly talk about how we're not safe from shark attacks unless they do these things Bush wants to do, vote for him...

And of course Bush could 100% sincerely believe that this (terrorism, not the shark thing) is a major issue, a major threat, and this is the correct way to handle the problem, and is doing it for what is the best interest of our country... But then it would simply be a situation of me disagreeing with the way he's handling it... Which is reason enough for me to not vote for him...

Re: Kerry's the one

I'm not sure how old the Sarin gas missles were, but there were about 14 of them, and the main point is that they were not disposed of like they should have been, but only hidden. That begs the question, how much more is hidden?

The trucks moving out of Syria can indeed be anything, but it should be investigated more instead of just writing it off and saying that Saddam was not a threat because our inspectors could not find things at these sites Saddam was leading them to.

Quote:

As for him being a threat in the first place, if he acquired WMD, did he actually have the means to attack the US with them? If he channeled them off to terrorist groups, would they?

If we didn't invade Iraq, I think Saddam would have been much more capable to hand them off or to use them. And it is obvious that terrorists are able to reach us after experiencing 9/11, but according to the 9/11 report and statements by the commision head (can't remember his name), terrorists do not have the capabilities to pull off another high scale attack on our home soil thanks to the war on terror.

Quote:

And how can you be sure of that? Depending on your view of the situation, that could go against Bush'n'co... Iraq was a threat because Saddam wanted weapons (of course, at the time we thought he had them, but since then people have been saying even without the weapons he was worth taking out), North Korea and Iran are a threat because they have them... But we invade Iraq?

The problem there is that we have not gone through the same efforts with Iran and North Korea that we have with Iraq. Why? Because Iraq had more of a threat from the beginnning and the dictator ruling Iraq was much more sinister.

But, lets just imagine how much more other countries would be mad at us if we had instead invaded, say, Iran since we know there are WMD's there. We have not tried as much diplomacy, we have not put UN sanctions on them, and we don't have inspectors there. We would now be targetted for being a gigantic war-mongering nation because we didn't try to use diplomacy. We did in Iraq, and as far as we knew, it wasn't working.

Damn, got to go.

Re: Kerry's the one

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackmane

Or it could be because Daddy Bush gave Saddam weapons and it would be detrimental to the Bush family name if they were ever used against anyone.

Stonecutter's article was lengthy pointless political rhetoric. I don't see how anyone can consider Bush the "Ultimate Republican".