Why I'm Voting For Bush

Or, Why the Bush Administration is Utterly Incompetent with Regards to Public Relations

Foreign Policy

George W. Bush has been harping on this notion that the “world is a safer place” and the “world is better off” now that Saddam Hussein has been taken out of power. This line is basically a catchall argument to any refutation of his administration’s foreign policy. Why isn’t Bush utilizing the tools he has? Declarations of war are simple for many reasons.

Bush and his administration actually outlined a few plausible reasons, however, it seems that the American public have construed these reasons (with the help of the Kerry campaign) to the point that they almost make Bush appear to be dishonest. Instead of emphasizing certain issues, Bush continues to poorly defend himself for his administration’s preemptive strike in Iraq. The argument that Saddam Hussein was encouraging and funding terrorism, and furthermore harboring terrorists has been an ambiguous one. I was sold after doing quite a bit of research on the issue, especially after looking at the Duelfer Report. However, I will not address that issue at this time. What I will suggest is a different approach for the Bush campaign to better serve the American people and present them with the facts–even though it might be too little too late.

Two core issues, I believe, are clear declarations of war:

The M.I.A. status of an American soldier in Iraq.¹

The violations of the No-Fly Zone over Iraq.²

The first issue, in my opinion, is the most important one. More than several sightings of P.O.W. Lt. Cmdr. Michael Scott Speicher were reported between the end of the first Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. As The Associated Press reported in March of 2003, “the Iraqi government has concealed information about his fate” and has continued to do so, yet, the media has not covered the updates of this situation for some time. In order to keep military morale up, and in an effort to remain an all-volunteer army, America largely has, and rightly so, maintained that detaining American soldiers, and furthermore, concealing information about detained American soldiers is a declaration of war. The Vietnam War is one of the defining negative moments in American foreign policy and should be looked at in terms of what not to do with regards to our American troops. For example, Senator John McCain was a P.O.W. for eight years–this is a clear disservice to our military and should be looked upon as a detriment. Instead of focusing on why the world is better off, Bush might try to consider the fact that the Iraqi regime has continually suppressed information, including intelligence concerning an American military officer.

The second issue, while it has remained a controversial issue, should be analyzed as well. The fact of the matter is the humanitarian effort to reduce Iraqi casualties after the first Gulf War was clearly ignored by the Iraqi regime. U.S. planes were fired upon and some even brought down in the No-Fly Zone and, though not an official U.N. resolution, clearly shows the disdain the Iraqis have for any U.N. sanctions. America, Britain and France (France later pulled out) continued to patrol this No-Fly Zone and the Iraqis continually ignored the regulation. This sort of activity shows the utter disdain for authority and clearly shows the motivation of the Iraqis with respect to an effort to police the Middle East. If fighter jets suddenly flew over Houston and fired upon commercial airlines, what would be the American sentiment then?

I think these issues should at least be addressed by both the Bush and Kerry campaigns, but instead, they seem to be narrowly focused on this issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction. I will reiterate the fact that I do agree with the current administration’s decision to (finally) take action against Saddam’s antagonistic attitude toward U.N. regulations, the fact that he was attempting to make allies with terrorists (Cf. the Duelfer Report), and that he was killing tens of thousands of his own people. However, I would like to see the above issues addressed. Instead, Bush ignores these issues and because of this, has lost the hearts of many Americans. His continual defiant position has proverbially bit him in the ass and he might lose the election because of it.

The American people deserve an honest, frank discussion on what has gone on in Iraq, but instead, Bush and the current administration effectively ignore what, in my mind, are some of the most important issues. Kerry also ignores these issues, insofar is its much easier to persuade the American people to join what has been called the “Anybody But Bush” (ABB) alliance. I do not think this is an intelligible argument to vote for Kerry, and frankly, I think the American people are being deceived by this smokescreen. Continuing to propagate this mentality, in my mind, takes away any credibility Kerry might have. It is an underhanded way to garner votes and clearly does not address the most important issues.

If I decide to, I might write a brief essay on domestic policy which might be titled:

Why I Vote Republican

Or, Why Democrats Are Far More Clever Than Republicans

Endnotes:

¹Cf. CNN, AP, Reuters. “Iraq denies U.S. claims missing Gulf War pilot might still be alive: Aviator’s status changed from ‘killed in action’ to ‘missing in action.’” CNN.com, 13 January 2001. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/01/13/gulf.war.pilot/. Accessed 23 October, 2004.

Also Cf. AP. “Senator Says Missing Gulf War POW May Have Been Seen in Baghdad.” FoxNews.com, 28 March, 2003. http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,82535,00.html. Accessed 23 October, 2004.

²Cf. Karon, Tony. “Why ‘No-Fly’ Zone Clashes Won’t Trigger an Iraq War.” Time.com, 19 November, 2002. http://www.time.com/time/world/printout/0,8816,391985,00.html. Accessed 23 October, 2004 [note: this article presents both my opinion and the dissenting opinion].

Filed under: Politics, 2004 presidential election, George W. Bush

On Site at the Second Presidential Debate in St Louis

Filed under: Politics, 2004 presidential election, George W. Bush, John Kerry, St. Louis

Cheney vs Edwards: the Vice-Presidential Debate

The Vice-Presidential debate this evening, while a bit dry, was clearly in favor of Dick Cheney. John Edwards appeared to be an amateur, fumbling with his notebook and tearing out pages, interrupting the Vice-President, not paying attention, and simply not answering questions effectively, sincerely, and when answering them, answering them out of place.

Cheney, on the other hand, seemed very well researched on the issues, clearly understood the questions and answered them lucidly and to the point, did not waste time on spouting rhetoric, and did not belittle his competition, even when given the open opportunity.

As far as national security is concerned, Cheney clearly overwhelmed Edwards here. Edwards continually appealed to Kerry’s speech last Thursday: that he clearly showed conviction and resolve and a plan was in place. Cheney simply rebutted with Kerry’s low Senatorial record. Over the course of his time in Senate, Kerry has had the dissenting vote on most issues on national security. I wouldn’t say this is a record of conviction. I’ll spare you bloggees out there the reiteration of the specific flip-floppery. However, I will note an interesting conclusion, though speculative, that Cheney made in regards to Kerry’s continual change of mind. He mentioned that as Howard Dean gained popularity, Kerry began to vote against the war, but then after Dean lost control, he was for the war again.

Edwards’ only response to the future of the Middle East was that he and Kerry had a plan of “success” unlike the Bush administration. By doing this, he basically assumed that the Bush administration charged into Iraq with no plan in mind at all, especially one that would be successful. I think that Cheney clearly outlined the plan that the Bush administration had in regards to Afghanistan and Iraq, and further, Iran and North Korea. Edwards also used the same clever tactic that Kerry did during the first Presidential debate. He said that the Bush administration had “outsourced” militarily.

Cheney outlined Edwards’ plan for “success” as follows. Criticizing our allied leaders (the “coalition of the coerced and the bribed”), remaining inconsistent (both Kerry and Edwards’ Senatorial record), and demeaning our allies in war and the sacrifice of the Iraqi people themselves. I do not think that Edwards was successful in responding to the problems with Kerry’s “global test” response to a question posited during the first Presidential debate.

As many political analysts suggested, Edwards brought up Halliburton. I do think he made some good points, however, Cheney clearly disassociated himself with the facts that Edwards presented by saying that the Democratic Party had been using Halliburton as a “smokescreen” in order to slip away from other pertinent issues. Edwards claimed that Halliburton did business with “sworn enemies,” bribed officials and gave false information; and that the company was under investigation currently. Cheney had little time to respond, but instead plugged a website—I’ll Furl that website for you when I find out what it is; I thought he said “factcheck.com” but that actually links to George Soros’ site, a man who is very anti-Bush.

As far as domestic issues are concerned, I felt the debate was less polarized. Cheney seemed to back up the current administration’s actions with facts and figures that showed support. Edwards disagreed and stated what the Kerry administration would do to solve the problems.

The question of poverty came up first. Cheney stated that creating more jobs was one of the solutions, and that the Bush administration had the record to show it. He also talked about cutting taxes, reducing litigation that increases healthcare costs, and most importantly—in his opinion—focusing on education. The core issue, according to Cheney, is a higher standard in the school systems, and making the schools and parents accountable.

Edwards implied that the Vice President had not actually answered the question by asking for a clarification and then proceeded to talk about job loss, including, manufacturing jobs. He did not mention, however, the fact that technology is really responsible for much of this. He also made it clear that the Kerry administration would restrict outsourcing and provide tax cuts for those companies that chose not to outsource jobs. He also mentioned balancing the budget.

Related to the previous question, a question came up as to exactly how the Kerry administration would cut the deficit in half and not raise taxes for those making under $200,000 a year. Edwards stated the plan to “roll back” tax cuts for those who made $200,000 or more, and that he did support tax cuts for the middle class. He also claimed he would somehow get rid of bureaucratic spending.

Cheney rebutted with Kerry’s record on taxes, that he had voted for ninety-eight tax increases. His most important response was mentioning the fundamental philosophical difference between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans let the American people keep their money in their pockets and believe this better fuels the economy, while Democrats take that money away and spend in on what the federal government thinks it should be spent on—thusly increasing the size of the government. He also mentioned the fact that small businesses actually take the hit with tax increases. While a small business owner may make more money than the average American citizen. It is he who must pay his employees. Paying his employees well fuels the economy.

Edwards responded with more rhetoric concerning tax cuts for the middle class. To which Cheney stated simply: Bush signed a bill which cut taxes for the middle class just yesterday—both Kerry and Edwards were not present.

Both candidates seemed to be in agreement on the gay rights issue. They both made it clear that all American citizens need to be equal and deserve similar rights. Cheney stated he would follow the President, however, with regard to the definition of marriage, and Edwards stated verbatim “marriage means between a man and a woman.” They both agreed, however, that the amendment is not necessary and that it should be left up to the state. Edwards also added that no state is required to recognize a state marriage.

Cheney was given the opportunity to seriously criticize Edwards with regards to his law record, in response to a question asking if Edwards was part of the litigation problem in America. Cheney did not take this opportunity, but instead, outlined that malpractice suits have greatly increased the cost of healthcare. His solution would include capping non-economic damages.

Edwards basically agreed with the idea that there were far too many lawsuits. His suggestion would be to place more responsibility on the lawyers in order to keep cases legitimate. The problem is that can deny access to the courts for some and allow access to others—and at whose distinction? The lawyers? Obviously this is a problem and would simply be used as yet another money filter.

Concerning the credibility of either candidate to be Vice-President, both answered in clear and distinct ways. The difference is simple: Cheney’s record lends validity to his response, whereas Edwards’ does not. Even though Edwards was not supposed to mention Kerry’s name in response to this question, he did so twice. He said that the Kerry administration would tell the truth, no matter what the situation was. He stated that a long resume did not equal good judgment. He stated that he would find the terrorists and kill them. And that he would strengthen the military. All of this sounds similar to the rhetoric of the Bush administration.

Cheney simply stated he was hired to help the team. His record gives him authority and clearly defines him as an asset to the administration. When asked the difference between him and Edwards, he mentioned that actually there were more similarities. Cheney is clearly a self-made man and very briefly appealed to his ability to relate to those American families who go through troubled times, given he too has gone through many troubled times.

Both accused each other of flip-flopping, and when Cheney mentioned the Bush administration wanted to unite the country, Edwards pointed out that the country is most divided now.

Finally, the closing arguments given by both candidates were very polarized. Edwards focused on appealing to emotion in order to engrain the concept that he is there to fight for the American people; that the light of America is currently “flickering.”

Cheney, on the other hand, was very straightforward about what he and the Bush administration had already done, and what they would do in the future.

This final sentiment of both candidates summarizes the entire debate. While one appealed to emotion, using rhetoric and hype, the other outlined plans specifically, gave accurate statistics and provided clear and concise answers.

Democrats, see the transcript: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6187803/

Republicans, see the transcript: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,134579,00.html

Oh, I can’t help myself.

Filed under: Politics, 2004 presidential election, Dick Cheney, John Edwards

Bush vs Kerry: Presidential Debates part one

The first round of the Presidential debates occurred this evening between Senator John Kerry and President George W. Bush. Overall, I think the debate was well organized and both candidates had some strong and weak points.

Bush seemed to be concerned with delivering a short, concise message: that we cannot be intimidated by terrorism, and that we must hold steadfast and continue along that path. John Kerry, while he agreed that we must continue the job, repeatedly cited that President Bush did not go into Iraq in the most effective manner. That he would have been far more diplomatic and would have passed the “global test” before taking preemptive action. Bush’s rebuttal was lucid, concise and to the point. He mentioned that Kerry saw the same intelligence reports that Bush and his administration and the United Nations had all seen. He mentioned that Kerry was in agreement, along with the rest of the world—Saddam Hussein was a threat that had to be reckoned with. The difference being that Kerry, in Bush’s perspective, would have deferred to the global population to tell him when he could protect America. I really think this lost the debate for Kerry.

Although Bush seemed to run out of material given his simple message, I believe that Bush had the upper hand here. I do think that Kerry utilized a brilliant spin tactic in his use of the word “outsourcing” in regards to our actions in Afghanistan. The Bush administration chose to use Afghani “war mongers” instead of our best military—given our military was invading Iraq at the time. Given the current issues with Halliburton, outsourcing has become a critical issue and I think that, while Kerry did not specifically say anything about this, people will hear the word and associate the negative idea.

Concerning the issue of invading Iraq, however, Bush seemed to be very clear in his reasoning as to why he decided to take preemptive action. I think the fact that Saddam had for so long gone against U.N. regulations, only furthers the reasoning behind our President’s decision. Instead of allowing him to grow stronger and stronger, Bush decided to take action. Kerry’s only response was that Saddam would not have grown stronger, that two-thirds of Iraq was a no fly zone and so on. However, I think it is quite clear that he had been gaining control and gaining support over the years, and would have definitely gotten stronger had we allowed him to break U.N. regulations yet again.

Unfortunately for Kerry, while he continues to negatively critique the President’s “plan” in Iraq, he never actually told the American people—in this debate or otherwise—exactly what his plan would be. Bush outlined his simply: we will train the Iraqis to defend themselves, garner support from foreign countries and at some point pull out. Kerry’s “plan,” though left unstated, seems to be something of the nature of alienating our allies by criticizing their involvement, alienating our troops and the American people by telling them this is the “wrong war, wrong place wrong time,” and letting the terrorists know that Iraq is the last place we want to be. Bush gave a very emotive response to all of this—and an important response indeed. He stated that this was the way to not have victory.

Kerry even criticized Bush for his tax cuts, telling us that instead of cutting taxes that money could have been used for Homeland Security; that Bush had not spent enough protecting our nation. Yet Bush has spent thirty-five percent more during his campaign on Homeland Security by strengthening our borders, changing the “culture” of the F.B.I and intelligence departments, and initiating programs like the Patriot Act in order to allow law enforcement to better engage domestic terrorism.

And to digress from the war on Iraq for a moment, certain issues like Iran and North Korea were touched on as well. Bush is adamant on not letting nuclear weapons being produced in Iran; however, Kerry’s standpoint is that we should allow Iran to create this pseudo-global warming prevention experiment, as if they were not really using this to produce nuclear weapons. This sort of behavior is what got us in the situation we are in now. As far as North Korea is concerned, it was a clear draw between the two candidates. I don’t think this issue has been resolved enough for me to comment on it.

Speaking of nuclear weapons, Kerry also asserted that he would cut all domestic funding of our own weapons, in order to ensure the proliferation of all nuclear weapons. The idea that we should cut off our military technology is a stance I would not take. I am somewhat surprised that Bush did not comment on this.

Ultimately, I think that, while Kerry was calm and articulate and refined, he was also uninformed, scattered, and problematic. Bush delivered a simple message and he delivered it well. He showed the clear problems with Kerry’s ideas and, further, that his ideas were insufficient. He has yet to give a clear, concise and obvious plan for his administration. And the promises that he makes are laughable and “absurd,” as Bush stated.

Filed under: Politics, 2004 presidential election, George W. Bush, John Kerry

President Bush Enters the No Spin Zone

BillOReilly.com: Print Column – President Bush Enters the No Spin Zone:

“I approached my thirty minute interview with the President cautiously. I kept my presence low key, which is a tremendous departure for me. There are certain rules that have to be followed when talking with the most powerful man in the world, and I respected the guidelines.”

Hello dearest Bloggees! For those of you who question Mr. O’Reilly’s motives and take issue with his opinions and so forth, I urge you to watch the next two parts of his interview with President Bush, airing on Fox News this evening and the next.

The first interview was utterly phenomenal. O’Reilly asked the controversial questions–as he always does–and did not refrain from being firm in his position. He explains in the article above, exactly how he went about proceeding with the interview. Despite his “caution,” he is, without a doubt, one of the key political analysts of our time, if for no other reason but that he cannot be intimidated and he gets the answers to the questions the people want to know. And as far as I see it, he’s very respectful and diligent in doing so.

The best example last night was his question posited to Bush concerning the potentiality of Iran creating nuclear weapons. He asked if we would allow such a thing. Bush intended to deflect the question by talking about diplomacy and to please let him try that route first–that all options would be on the table. But O’Reilly didn’t let him–and he ultimately got the answer to his question: would it be conceivable that we might allow nuclear weapons to be created in Iran. The answer Bush gave was “no.”

In a time when mainstream journalism seems to be losing its sway to independent sources, cable news sources and most intriguing: even blogging, it is crucial to find commentators who won’t buckle in front of someone as powerful as the President or someone shrouded in controversy, or anything else. People like O’Reilly and Chris Matthews of Hardball and others in the cable news circuit are refreshing and real. The feelings-based interviewers like Larry King are thankfully given less and less credence. I watch the news to find out what’s going on in the world, and to find answers about political, domestic and international concerns–I don’t watch the news to see silly interviewers pandering to their guests. If I wanted that, I’d go watch a John Kerry speech (cheap shot!).

Either way, my concern with media as of late is an important concern, I think, to all of us who care about what’s going on in the world. It can be difficult sometimes to find the answers in all this convoluted nonsense. But remember, it’s always up to you to decipher those comments that are factual and those that are merely opinions. And further, what opinions are of value and those that are simply nonsensical. As Bush said to O’Reilly last night when questioned about the media’s portrayal of the President and his administration, “I’ll let the people decide.”

News Hounds has provided a transcript for this interview. Warning: News Hounds is a an anti-FoxNews Website. Proceed with caution.

Update: I received this response to a comment I left at News Hounds. Below is the response and my response to that response.

“Holy shit, folks, this poster below really is Bill O’Reilly, or someone writing with his auspices. The language is classic O’Reilly, I can hear him dictating it to an underling who must type it and post it here:

[my post here]“

Posted by: Gabby Hayes at September 28, 2004 06:15 PM

Gabby, thank you so much for the compliment! I am utterly speechless!

Filed under: Politics, 2004 presidential election, Bill O'Reilly, George W. Bush

What have the actions of CBS done to mainstream news?

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > The News Media: CBS News Concludes It Was Misled on National Guard Memos, Network Officials Say

The New York Times article above is basically saying that the documents questioning President Bush’s National Guard service were completely fabricated and came from faulty services. CBS has since come clean and apologized for their blatant disregard for proper journalism. But is that enough? I for one do not believe this will not go away. Dan Rather might be in for early retirement, and the ramifications this will have on the public image of CBS will be devastating.

But the real issue here is whether this story was a scandal, and if so, who was a part of it? We as Americans require that our news sources are at least honest in their delivery of the news. For the last few years, many have questioned the motives of news sources. Stations like Fox News are constantly criticized for having a bias of sorts–and have been for years now. While Fox News has gained quite a widespread credibility in recent years, the far Left continues to lambaste its journalism. Well, what has CBS done to the far Left?

I fear this might not only be a punch to CBS, but to all the mainstream local networks as well. Statistics clearly show that ratings amongst the three giants–ABC, CBS, and NBC–have fallen drastically, whereas the ratings of the cable networks such as Fox News, MSNBC and CNN have been on the rise. This current issue may really be a blow to mainstream journalism and will hopefully shake people up enough to watch multiple news sources. The honesty and credibility of our nation’s news should not have to be questioned in such a way that we can no longer trust our news sources.

I think it is very clear that certain news sources will be biased, sometimes simply by opinion and sometimes even in such a way that the facts are mislead to a small degree. An example would be a news source focusing on one story that breaks concerning one of the Presidential candidates and not covering another story that breaks about the other.

But this is something completely different. This story that broke at CBS–and above and beyond that, the testimony Dan Rather gave to it (i.e., “I know this story is true”), has far more detrimental characteristics. It is a slap in the face to all of media. And I firmly believe that the integrity of journalism has taken a huge blow because of this.

Update, 9/22: The link below from the New York Times, “Find the Forger” discusses the gravity of this situation, legally speaking. That is, the offense could mean jail time of up to twenty years for the offender.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: First, Find the Forger

Filed under: Politics, 2004 presidential election, Dan Rather, George W. Bush

Politics vs. Science

Recently, I posted a commentary on Postmodern Thinking (http://www.postmodernthinking.blogspot.com) concerning Paul Bloom’s article for the New York Times, entitled: The Duel Between Body and Soul. I addressed the philosophical problems of the epistemology of science, i.e., that science is not the be-all-end-all of thinking, insofar is it reliant on sense data, and sense data alone. See the post for more on the philosophical concerns. Here, I will address the political concerns of Bloom’s article.

In short, I agree with Bloom. Politics should not reign over science to such a degree as it truncates our ability to understand and observe natural things, simply because of quasi-religious connotations.

Let’s take the example of stem cell research. The bioethics involved with politics tells us (I am quoting Bloom’s quotation of The President’s Council on Bioethics here) “We have both corporeal and noncorporeal aspects.” This becomes problematic insofar as the issues concerning the philosophical aspects of the “soul” or spirituality are taken for granted because instead of concerning ourselves with the real philosophical problems (e.g., the simple fact that we-as humans-are limited by our body), we simply feed the agenda. The agenda here being the Right-wing Conservative Christian agenda: that Christianity should reign and that Christian authorities should border the boundaries of science.

In other words, instead of focusing on the real philosophical problems, political groups are focusing on what fits their agenda. To say that this is easily remedied is absurd, however, given special interest groups reign anyway.

So what is the solution? In my opinion, the solution lies in understanding ourselves as human beings-furthermore, understanding our flaws and limitations as human beings. Instead of conquering nature and finding ways to cheat it, we might try simply attempting to understand nature, understand it’s essence, it’s substance, it’s very being, if you will. Keeping this in mind, I think, would require us-as human beings-to ask more questions and give fewer answers. Does this solve the problem, directly? Of course not. But it does give a foundational method for approaching these problems.

Filed under: Philosophy, Politics, Science, Paul Bloom

The War Psychology

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: A Mythic Reality:

“The point is that once war psychology takes hold, the public desperately wants to believe in its leadership, and ascribes heroic qualities to even the least deserving ruler. National adulation for the junta ended only after a humiliating military defeat.

George W. Bush isn’t General Galtieri: America really was attacked on 9/11, and any president would have followed up with a counterstrike against the Taliban. Yet the Bush administration, like the Argentine junta, derived enormous political benefit from the impulse of a nation at war to rally around its leader.”

Dearest Bloggees, you really should read the article above before reading my brief commentary. I chose to actually blog about this verses placing it in my new ‘Dailies’ section (a section provided for all of you to follow what I read daily in the news, politics, or simply entertainment) because I felt it an important psychological point that Paul Krugman–writer for the New York Times–is writing about.

Eric Hoffer’s True Believer prudently observes an individual’s need to follow a cause–any cause–when he feels downtrodden individually or nationally. Hoffer believes that individuals under oppression will flock to any cause which presents them some opportunity of change. He envelopes causes such as Nazism, Communism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Marxism.

Hoffer writes, “A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people’s business.”

Hoffer’s interesting analyis of the pseudo-ennobled indivual seems to be the primary content of the essay Krugman is talking about. He points out that the author lends credence to the idea that wars create a false sense of identity with individuals of a nation, emphasizing the need to give leaders more credibility than they really deserve. The reason for this can be summed up in Hoffer’s book: it is a desire for change because of fear or unrest with the present.

Unfortunately, the problem exists due to the condition of mankind–we fear what we do not know.

But the problem with Krugman’s analysis is he begins to build a non sequitur, beginning with the premise that a) any leader would have led a counterattack against the Taliban; and then concluding that b) a prudent leader would not have “exploited” the war psychology in order to engage in other war-time efforts. It does not follow simply because there are many correlations with what occurred on 9/11 and what the current administration has been doing since then. Regardless of specifics (such as false intelligence, false allegations that there were direct ties with Al Qaeda in Iraq, et. al.), it does not necessarily follow that a different leader would not have been approached by these problems. It’s simply not enough that Bush might possibly be “exploiting” this basic psychology in order to garner political gain–and anyway, I believe any politician would do that. They’re all concerned with the votes in the end, anyway.

So, the real question here is: were the other war efforts necessary and important to follow through with given the situations presented? I think the evidence makes a case for it. And if that is true, then Krugman’s commentary does not necessarily follow. But then again, that’s why it’s an editorial.

Filed under: Politics, Eric Hoffer, George W. Bush, Paul Krugman, True Believer

Bush delivers pointed speech to the RNC? You Decide.

President George W. Bush’s speech at the Republican National Convention focused primarily on policy issues he has been concerned with from the beginning: a stronger healthcare system, federal funding in order to promote education, a getting back to conservativism, and ultimately, a safer America. A phenomenal delivery, Bush will certainly reap some political rewards from this speech, and moreover, the entire convention.

His healthcare reform policy is one which will give more access to small business employees by forcefully allowing them to team up with other small businesses in order to ensure the same benefits garnered to larger corporations. And moreover, legal reform to ensure the benefits of a positive healthcare system for everyone, including the poor and the middle-class.

Bush has already done quite a bit of good as far as education is concerned and he stated his goal to perpetuate this good–by providing federal funding in order to promote more rigorous schooling schedules, and to specifically test seniors before graduation in order to ensure their ability proceed into colleges. He also mentioned the necessity of federal Pell Grants to be increased.

His conservative ideal correlates directly with his sense of present national security: that we should stick together and fight the threat of terror among us. He announced that we should come together as a nation and stand up for our freedom. He also focused on conservative issues that have been in the news lately. Including, issues such as “protecting the institution of marriage” and protecting our “unborn” children.

On the lines of conservatism, we cannot leave out an important Republican ideal: tax cuts. Bush outlined the importance of keeping taxes low in order to promote a more efficient economy. He also briefly discussed the tax increase that Democratic Presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry supports.

He did focus on terrorism, though, not at a large degree. He discussed the nationalism it has created throughout the country. He mentioned the positive effects we have had on the Middle East, mentioning the increased freedom and promotion of Democracy abroad. He also seemed concerned of Kerry’s “flip-flopping” with crucial issues concerning federal funding for troops and immediate attention in Iraq as opposed to delaying for representative international votes. He anecdotally mentioned that as he stood in the middle of the debris that was the Twin Towers in New York City, he was called upon to do “whatever is necessary” and to “not let [us] down” in his reaction to September 11^th.

Bush’s message is clear: he will not cease to continue defending America from any threat whatsoever. There was no defense of said “threat” except when Bush described Saddam Hussein as a “madman” that could not be trusted. His patriotism was well defined and courageously spoken. And furthermore, Bush seems adamant on the notion that we must continue defending the nation, “whatever is necessary.”

Filed under: Politics, 2004 presidential election, George W. Bush

Kerry TV Ad Pins Veterans’ Attack Firmly on Bush

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Kerry TV Ad Pins Veterans’ Attack Firmly on Bush

I’m sure many of you have been following this issue as closely as I have. Where I stand so far is that there are clear Republican connections to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth–and I don’t think anyone would disagree with me there—however, simply because Bush is a Republican does not prove that he has direct connections with the SBVfT.

The allegations are that (a) the primary contributors are Republican and (b) one of the Vets in the television advertisement is actually on the Bush campaign.

The first point gives little credence to the idea that Bush is in some way responsible for this. This can be cleared up with an example of an hasty generalization: All husbands are men. Some husbands kill their wives. Therefore, all husbands kill their wives. Of course, this is absolutely false; and I only note it to confirm the idea that because some Republicans condone this behavior, we cannot therefore conclude that all Republicans condone this behavior.

The second allegation, however, is more problematic. I briefly watched part of an interview with an attorney for the Democratic party and someone with the Republican National Party (his title escapes me at the moment) this morning. Basically, the Kerry campaign has filed charges against Bush to the Federal Election Commission concerning this issue and the alleged evidence is this man who is allegedly, part of the Bush campaign. The rebuttal is that he is merely a “low level volunteer.” If the FEC finds the Bush campaign involved with the SBVfT it will be quite a conundrum for the RNP and could cost the election in my opinion.

As a final thought, I won’t rule out the possibility, however, based on how this has all played out and the reactions of the RNP to the initial advertisement, I don’t see a direct connection. But even the indirect connection could prove to be detrimental

Filed under: Politics, 2004 presidential election, John Kerry, Swift Vets