2004-10-01 12:27![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
digitaldiscipline
digitaldisciplineFox News host Sean Hannity said of Bush, "I've never seen him more passionate, more on message, more articulate."
Mr. Hannity, for those not afflicted with an excess of knowledge about the political leanings of the various talking heads that puport to be political journalists, makes Rush Limbaugh look like a weak-kneed moderate.
You can look at his comment above as either a frank admission that even the GOP's most rabid lackeys know W is a drooling moron, whose long, blinking pauses, vaguely constipated reactions to Kerry's criticism, and frequent nonsensical repititions of party rhetoric are as good as he gets when he doesn't have scriptwriters doing his thinking (or Cheney's hand up his ass), or you can wonder exactly how deluded the neocon mouthpieces in the media have gotten themselves, and are not just unwilling, but unable, to come to terms with the fact that their man in the Oval Office just got his ass handed to him with a bow on top, and was lucky to walk out of the debate not wearing it for a hat.
I've been more articulate after nine beers and four hours of Halo.
Mr. Hannity, for those not afflicted with an excess of knowledge about the political leanings of the various talking heads that puport to be political journalists, makes Rush Limbaugh look like a weak-kneed moderate.
You can look at his comment above as either a frank admission that even the GOP's most rabid lackeys know W is a drooling moron, whose long, blinking pauses, vaguely constipated reactions to Kerry's criticism, and frequent nonsensical repititions of party rhetoric are as good as he gets when he doesn't have scriptwriters doing his thinking (or Cheney's hand up his ass), or you can wonder exactly how deluded the neocon mouthpieces in the media have gotten themselves, and are not just unwilling, but unable, to come to terms with the fact that their man in the Oval Office just got his ass handed to him with a bow on top, and was lucky to walk out of the debate not wearing it for a hat.
I've been more articulate after nine beers and four hours of Halo.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
"Look, the President of the United States of America is incapable of stringing words together. That would make him a very bad president indeed. But wait, the opposing politcal candidate is articulate and incapable of holding a position for a whole 45 minutes at a time. Which is pretty grim since he doesn't even offer solutions to the problems he does point out. That would make him a bad president too. And to top it off, look, neither of them have any connection to the very people that work and fight and vote in this country."
In other words, I think the first debate proved we have sunk to the lowest possible point in a presidential race in the history of America.
(no subject)
The last image was my favorite though.
(no subject)
(no subject)
kerry was consistent and focused and pretty much disabused the notion of the "flip flopping" label that rove & co have been trying to slap on him. he's served during wartime.
does that make him an ideal candidate? no. but it makes him the better one.
(no subject)
Part 1
Sorry - I read the debate afterwards. I only listened to part of the debate between 21:30 and 22:15 while on the phone with Kathy.
While I don't doubt that watching Kerry and Bush in action is probably a third dimension to the debate, I've seen them both speak enough times now that I wasn't expecting anything radically different to pop up in their presentation and mannerisms.
Although during the exchange about their daughters I would have been interesting to see their body language - I was given the impression from the text that Kerry landed a major "maturity" point there by tackling Bush head on for using the word "leash."
kerry was consistent and focused and pretty much disabused the notion of the "flip flopping" label that rove & co have been trying to slap on him.
I guess I took things away from that differently. Bush pointed out more than once that Kerry has changed his mind in the past and was definitely wasting air time by trying to drive that point home. Which is ironic for a man who says he was very different in his youth - and thus washes away his entire past up to what, like his mid 30s? That's a pretty major flip flop to note.
But what I see Kerry saying is more of the same generalities. Comments I thought he had made - which no doubt have become sound-byted and over emphasized out of context during the course of his campaign - he really seemed to fail to provide any structure on action.
Let me give an example of a foreign policy weakness I think Bush has on Iraq. During the Iraqi engagement and initial reconstruction - Bush wrongly (IMHO) transferred authority from the Department of Defense to the Department of State with lots of executive and oversight confusion. But Kerry doesn't pick out that action adn say - here's where Bush went wrong, the need to have consistent leadership amongst US DoS and DoD teams engaged in foreign affairs was allowed to suffer due to a dispute in Washington.
Instead Kerry just says the whole thing was a mistake once set into motion. He challenges the basis - but he is limited on what he can say since he did see the same intelligence and agreed with it - and targets the lack of U.N. involvement and allied cooperation. Unfortunately, Bush being such a weak debater and not focused on the facts fails to counter by pointing out how massive kickbacks and corruption within the existing UN sanctions around Aid $$ for Oil was funding Saddam during a period when Saddam was meant to be cut off from cash. Clearly with European nations being able to buy and sell with Iraq without any American competition (US embargoes of Iraq meant any US company or US headed company doing business with Iraq is an act of villany with commeasurate harsh jail time) - one can expect that the Europeans are not likely to act in the UN against their monetary interests. Likewise our focus on traditional European powers (Germany, France) has weakened our leveraging of new Eastern European powers like Poland who must be involved so they can begin to take a greater responsibility in the world commeasurate with their NATO status and providing an opportunity to field troops for experience. Bush should be comended for bringing these "new" natiosn to the table and helping them get involved even in a limited initial capacity.
So perhaps what I see in Kerry is an articulate rich white guy, who is convinced that the world did not change in the 90s when Clinton allowed free rein to a variety of military factions around the world while sporting nice hair and a peace focused mission. His Cold War style thinking directly contradicts what I hear a Local and Federal Government Security Conferences - e.g. where I hear that the time that we can continue to contain nuclear and biological agents is over, and there is no one nation or one organisation that can be targeted for terrorism.
(no subject)
Good god! Could you imagine how much taxes we'd all have to pay so the gov't could knock us back down to what we really make???
Part 2
When he says the US should act unilaterally to put sanctions on a nation and instead should wait for other nations to agree to do the same, but then says the US and the President are empowered to act unilaterally to protect and enforce the US position in the world... Ummm... also not a simple flip flop, but a very strange contradiction.
When Kerry says leveraging the Afghanistan Warlords in their nomadic and tribal zones in the mountains was outsourcing our actions against Al Queda, but he agrees the African Union is the right solution to problems in Sudan. That's not a classical flip flop either, but when you add in Kerry's comments about acting in concert with allies and then his comments saying only the US is best trained and therefore suited to pursue danagerous terrorists - I'm left just confused as heck.
I really believe we are in a period globally that is not like the prior period. The world has changed a great deal and in some ways the older political approach to things is no longer valid. Kerry seems to be applying a 1960-1970 world view. Bush doesn't even seem to have a world view at this point - he's just reactionary and beseiged.
At least that means Bush can respond to things even if he doesn't understand what is going on in the field. It sounds to me like Kerry's blinders are so firmly in place that he will be unable to respond.
(no subject)
(no subject)
To paraphrase a CNN story earlier today, a Bush campaign spokesperson said Kerry "came to play. We didn't expect that."
I think unless you saw the John Kerry that appeared last night, you have no idea whence you speak about the debate. Bush looked stunned and dazed, pausing for so long on many of his answers that it seemed he'd forgotten how to speak English (not that he speaks it all that well now).
Kerry did a commendable job. He had several issues he could have gone in for the kill on; but I also believe strongly that Bush, who knows he can't win a debate with a tree if the tree has an equal footing in questions, pared down many possible Kerry approaches with all of his rules demands. (And don't fool yourself into thinking that Kerry was the one who initiated all those silly debate rules... it was the Bush campaign, plain and simple, because they KNEW their candidate would lose in a straight-up debate to Kerry, and overwhelmingly.)
Re: Part 1
To paraphrase a CNN story earlier today, a Bush campaign spokesperson said Kerry "came to play. We didn't expect that."
I think unless you saw the John Kerry that appeared last night, you have no idea whence you speak about the debate. Bush looked stunned and dazed, pausing for so long on many of his answers that it seemed he'd forgotten how to speak English (not that he speaks it all that well now).
Kerry did a commendable job. He had several issues he could have gone in for the kill on; but I also believe strongly that Bush, who knows he can't win a debate with a tree if the tree has an equal footing in questions, pared down many possible Kerry approaches with all of his rules demands. (And don't fool yourself into thinking that Kerry was the one who initiated all those silly debate rules... it was the Bush campaign, plain and simple, because they KNEW their candidate would lose in a straight-up debate to Kerry, and overwhelmingly.)
Re: Part 2
It's not a coronation to say that; but Kerry has earned it.
So let's address some of this...
When Kerry says he is going to bring back troops and focus on domestic spending (for classical things like education and medical aid) instead of military actions, and then he turns around and says he's going to add two active duty divisions and increase the number of special forces specifically to deal with world issues... Ummm... I realize that isn't a classical flip flop but it sure sounded like a major contradiction.
Yes, he's going to add to the military for domestic protection. Imagine that. And the increase in Special Forces is so that we won't have to remain as overextended as we presently are. We're in danger right now from another attack, not because we're liberal, but because OUR PRESIDENT HAS LEFT US RELATIVELY DEFENSELESS.
When Kerry says leveraging the Afghanistan Warlords in their nomadic and tribal zones in the mountains was outsourcing our actions against Al Queda, but he agrees the African Union is the right solution to problems in Sudan. That's not a classical flip flop either, but when you add in Kerry's comments about acting in concert with allies and then his comments saying only the US is best trained and therefore suited to pursue danagerous terrorists - I'm left just confused as heck.
Boy, you're being deliberately obtuse here. I know you're smarter than that. The African Union isn't a bunch of warlords, for one. For two, the comment, in context, was that the US had bin Laden cornered and THEN Bush backed off. In other words, Bush made a boneheaded miscalculation of force. You're confused cuz you're looking to equivocate, again.
At least that means Bush can respond to things even if he doesn't understand what is going on in the field. It sounds to me like Kerry's blinders are so firmly in place that he will be unable to respond.
That's an extremely naive attitude. In other words, to YOU it's okay to have knee-jerk reactions, but it's NOT okay to think, debate, use diplomacy, and try to find a CIVIL and UNIVERSAL solution that the WORLD can live with. You say Kerry is living in the 1960-1970 world view; you're living in the 1910 world view in your nationalistic narrowness. It's not Kerry wearing the blinders here; it's Bush, conservatives, and you on this one.
(no subject)
I'm not sure about equivocating... but I am darn sure that Kerry did a better job than Bush with regards to standing on television and looking good.
However, I work with lots of good looking guys with great hair. In fact, I get paid lots of money because the majority of them are so unbelievably clueless that they do things like spend several million dollars on software which needs ot be installed and configured, and then fire all the systems administrators to save money.
So I require a bit more than looks, and as painful as it is to admit, I'm willing to overlook aspects of Bush's very poor television and public speaking mannerisms.
We're in danger right now from another attack, not because we're liberal, but because OUR PRESIDENT HAS LEFT US RELATIVELY DEFENSELESS.
We are not relatively defenseless. We do have several conflicting directions on how to proceed on domestic security.
We currently have more people on the Canadian border than ever. We actually reduced the number of people on the Mexican border to achieve that. But we've been hiring people for those posts like crazy.
We have the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) trying to tackle, integrate, and provide a focused response to domestic terrorism and in some cases investigative work. We have a shake up in the intelligence community (pre-9/11 commision) to try and get more people looking at terrorism from a prediction and prevention point of view. This has meant the entire FBI has a new mission - with no notice and they are hiring like mad to staff up to do that mission.
We have been stopping folks frequently - but in the wake of the bureaucratic chaos that has followed all these changes, the administration and process of what is required to pursue, convict, and imprison terrorists has suffered horribly. Lots of human rights and civil liberties issues are coming up on the domestic front. Those need to be addressed and balanced - but unfortunately the latest congressional measures seem to be focused more on empowering local law enforcement on tackling more types of activities without better guidelines on process and more funding to boost their own levels of staffing and equipment.
We are in danger of another attack. Because we are a prime target. No amount of liberalism or conservatism will change that. The only thing that will actually reduce our vulnerability will be getting in front of the population of the United States of America and telling people how to effectively protect themselves, respond to emergency situations, and act vigilantly to counter both illegal immigration and unusual activities.
Both Bush and Kerry seem to steer clear of this. I hate to say it, but they don't think the American public can handle the news that we are all vulnerable every day of our lives. They don't believe we can defend our own families and our own homes.
And to say we are DEFENSELESS is to say that you suggest they should be patrolling our neighborhoods and cities with national guardsmen - and I must say I vehemently disagree with that notion.
A bit more cut off by reply limits
We don't need more military for domestic protection. Military units cannot and should not be working the streets of America. Kerry seems to be interested in having more military head count so he can deploy troops to other parts of the world without drawing down forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I would suggest we shouldn't be in so many places of the world - we should engage our nations to be vigilant on thier territory and borders. But in truth that is unlikely to happen because many of these nation states are figureheads that don't really rule their populations. This is an aspect of Iraq that people forget - Saddam may have been the bad evil guy in power, but at every local level there was somebody or several somebodies managing their family or tribe or religious group.
This is very different than the USA - except maybe in very rural areas. We don't elect mayors because of family connections to the town, so when a mayor changes or is convicted of corruption, we don't have a cause to wage gun battles over. We may listen to a pastor or priest, but most Americans take a great deal of that commentary to be on how to live your life. Imagine a nation full of gunmen killing doctors who perform abortions, a nation full of kidnappers who share the ransom money with their local extended family and small town, a nation full of Klansmen riding out each night to string up the local minority ethnic or religious group...
That's Iraq and Afghanistan and more or less the majority of the Middle East. How does Special Forces make a difference in that environment? Counterinsurgency teams may be able to cut the head off some of those organisations, but the engrained behavior and local social support will just produce more of the same.
You cannot bleach Afghanistan and Iraq and get Wonder Bread America.
And I'm sorry, but Senator Kerry is very wrong if he things Special Forces is the bleach agent of the future.
(no subject)
Come again? The African Union is not a bunch of warlords you say? Maybe you should check out how they depict themselves here (http://www.africa-union.org/About_AU/au_in_a_nutshell.htm) and THEN look at the member states listing here (http://www.africa-union.org/Member_states/member_states_a.htm). I love the overvaulting style of their proclamation - it reads as "We are the EU of Africa." But when you look at the heads of states involved you get a different message, e.g. "We are the warlords consolidating power and in the name of us establishing peace in Africa, GIVE US MONEY."
Any African nation that willingly allows African Union forces into its territory has to wonder what they have gotten themselves in to. Not only are the AU activities outside the jurisdiction of any terriotry they enter, but their militaries do have a considerable number of people who fought in the civil wars across Africa - possibly still quite content with the loot, pillage, mutilate, and impress philosophy so sadly present on that continent.
For two, the comment, in context, was that the US had bin Laden cornered and THEN Bush backed off. In other words, Bush made a boneheaded miscalculation of force.
First let's put credit where credit is due. Bush, while we give him a great deal of credit for military action, probably does not make decisions about troops in the field pursuing an enemy. The Afghanistan and American military commands (involving Allied commands as well) probably had to make a call on how to handle the situation. You cannot bomb the mountains into submission - we've tried that and it just doesn't work. So you must deploy ground troops who know the terrain and the local population.
Kerry may be right that the US troops were the best trained and had the best equipment. But all of that is moot when the terrain and local population is unknown. So you deploy people who supposedly know that terrain and know who is good and who is bad - with a little bit of prejudice accepted since they are a local fighting force.
Which IS called working with our allies.
As for Osama Bin Laden being "cornered" - you tell me how cornered you'd feel if you had the entire Rocky Mountain range to roam and hide in. Kerry is vastly oversimplifying the situation because he counts on the American people being stupid and ignorant, and more interested in his hair and good looks than his attitude and lack of an action plan for progress.
Re: Part 2
There was no universal solution that the world wanted. That's why the UN is failing as a political entity. No group of nations has a clear agenda or set of priorities with respect to Afghanistan and Iraq. The Taliban slaughtered and maimed and destroyed its population - but the UN could not act. Why? Because without mutual interests, a democratic body requires a leader to step forward and rally people behind it.
With Iraq, the USA tried to do that. The USA pointed out the violations of UN sanctions and inspections expecting the UN members to be outraged. The USA pointed out the militant and threatening posturing of Saddam expecting the UN members to be angered. The USA pointed out the chemical and biological weapons programs expecting the UN members to agree it must be permanently stopped.
But the UN members were fractured. Many don't like US intervention on these situations because they are guilty of similar programs (Libya, Iran, etc.). Many only want US money to feed their populations so they develop competing economies or wage local wars (not too different than Iraq's approach under sanctions). The European powers, China, and Russia were receiving the benefits of highly marked up sales of trade goods to Iraq, no competition from US companies, and no vigilant oversight (the EU countries largely being responsible for policing themselves in this case) on exports to that country of questionable trade goods like laboratory equiepment and fiber optic networks.
When there is no UNIVERSAL solution - it is not a knee jerk reaction to engage your enemy. What I believe was troubling was the act of justifying it as a pre-emptive attack (man that is going to hurt us for the next 50 years as Russia and other totalitarian regimes use it on their neighbors). It was not a pre-emptive strike. It was a conditioned response to egregarious violations of conditions set after Iraq attempted to take over neighboring Kuwait.
The fatc the UN couldn't enforce its own mandates then and now says a great deal about how little the US can expect from the UN. The fact that the EU has been focused on setting up a world court with its own capability to prosecute any person on the planet says a lot about hwo they feel about the UN justice system as well.
In the end, the difference is probably one of opinion, my friend. You believe diplomacy works.
I believe diplomacy only works because of the blatant threat of force behind it. I would hold up Libya as a perfect example of how diplomacy with the true threat of force can change the world for the better.
I hold up North Korea as an example of how diplomacy using dollars to buy peace (as Clinton did there by asking for Uranium enrichment and nuclear development to stop in exchange for providing food and oil to that nation) fails.
I cannot think of a diplomatic act in history that didn't have money or force behind it. Perhaps the attempts by Turkey to join the EU - and that hasn't worked at all despite Turkey going through numerous hoops to get in. They don't have money and they don't have force - so diplomacy goes no where.
(no subject)
Bush always looks stunned and dazed and can barely read his cue cards. Ummm... so no shock.
John Kerry has a good television persona and nice hair. So far that makes him about as good as Clinton just minus natural charisma.
And if Clinton had been bumped off in his first term he'd have been a much more loved president in my book.
(no subject)
I don't like Bush and I find him to be a weak president. But if Kerry cannot lock down his sights and provide a concrete plan of action I'd rather keep the weakling than risk a blowhard stepping into his place.
So I didn't read a victory. I read a draw or worse - I felt both candidates proved the political process is too broken to provide viable candidates for the most important office in the USA.
(no subject)
The first rule about Rafe Club is you don't talk about Rafe Club.