August 31, 2004
"A Nation of Courage"
After McCain’s speech, the mood was carefully set for Giuliani’s speech. Three survivors of 9/11 victims told their stories of the loss of loved ones. It reminded me, and I’m sure everyone watching, of how we felt that day. I won’t ever forget that feeling, but when it is invoked like that it is so powerful. Then Daniel Rodriguez sang Amazing Grace. There weren’t many dry eyes in my house.
Giuliani started by invoking President Bush's words from the rubble of the World Trade Center:
Well, I can hear you. The whole world can hear you. And the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon.
Giuliani told us that President Bush kept his word:
Well, they heard from us.
They heard from us in Afghanistan and we removed the Taliban.
They heard from us in Iraq, and we ended Saddam Hussein's reign of terror.
And we put him where he belongs, in jail.
They heard from us in Libya, and without firing a shot Gadhafi abandoned his weapons of mass destruction.
They are hearing from us in nations that are now more reluctant to sponsor terrorists or terrorism.
So long as George Bush is our president, is there any doubt they will continue to hear from us until we defeat global terrorism?
There is no doubt in my mind. Giuliani offered this crowd pleaser:
You know, we're just not going to let the terrorists determine where we have political conventions, where we go, how we travel. We're Americans, the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Giuliani reminded us of the failures in the way terrorism was dealt with over the previous thirty years:
The horror, the shock and the devastation of those attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and over the skies of Pennsylvania lifted a cloud from our eyes.
We stood face to face with those people and forces who hijacked not just airplanes, but a great religion and turned it into a creed of terrorism dedicated to killing us and eradicating us and our way of life.
Giuliani recalled that the terrorists who survived their slaughter of the Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich were set free. How Leon Klinghoffer's murderers were likewise set free. And that Yasser Arafat was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "while he was supporting a plague of terrorism in the Middle East and undermining any chance of peace:"
Before September 11, we were living with an unrealistic view of our world, much like observing Europe appease Hitler or trying to accommodate the Soviet Union through the use of mutually assured destruction.
President Bush decided that we could no longer be just on defense against global terrorism, we must also be on offense.
On September 20, 2001, President Bush stood before a joint session of Congress, a still grieving and shocked nation and a confused world, and he changed the direction of our ship of state.
He dedicated America, under his leadership, to destroying global terrorism.
The president announced the Bush Doctrine, when he said, "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."
Giuliani then contrasted President Bush's determined relentless pursuit of the war against terror to Kerry's inconsistency on Iraq. Using Kerry's own words against him Giuliani highlighted just how irresolute Kerry has been on Iraq and what will be the two most played sound bite from this speech:
He even, at one point, declared himself as an antiwar candidate. And now he says he's pro-war candidate. At this rate, with 64 days left, he still has time to change his position four or five more times.
My point about John Kerry being inconsistent is best described in his own words, not mine. I quote John Kerry, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
Maybe this explains John Edwards' need for two Americas.
One is where John Kerry can vote for something and another where he can vote against exactly the same thing.
Giuliani also nailed Kerry for Kerry's claims of foreign support:
Remember, just a few months ago, John Kerry kind of leaked out that claim that certain foreign leaders who opposed our removal of Saddam Hussein prefer him.
Well, to me, that raises the risk that he might well accommodate his position to their viewpoint.
It would not be the first time that John Kerry changed his mind about matters of war and peace.
Finally Giuliani endorsed President Bush's long-term strategy for winning the war against terrorism:
President Bush has also focused us on the correct long-term answer for the violence and hatred emerging from the Middle East. The hatred and anger in the Middle East arises from the lack of accountable governments.
Rather than trying to grant more freedom, or create more income, or improve education and basic health care, these governments deflect their own failures by pointing to America and to Israel and to other external scapegoats.
But blaming these scapegoats does not improve the life of a single person in the Arab world.
It does not relieve the plight of even one woman in Iran.
It does not give a decent living to a single soul in Syria.
It doesn't stop the slaughter of African Christians in the Sudan.
The president understands that the changes necessary in the Middle East involve encouraging accountable, lawful, decent governments that can be role models and solve the problems of their own people
This has been a very important part of the Bush doctrine and the president's vision for the future.
Have faith in the power of freedom. People who live in freedom always prevail over people who live in oppression.
It was a very good speech. I'm sure the mainstream media will try to spin Guliani's speech as a negative attack on Kerry. It wasn't. Giuliani effectively highlighted Kerry's inconsistency, using Kerry's own nuances against him. It wasn't a negative attack, nor meanspirited. Sometimes the truth hurts.
"A Nation of Courage." What a great first night for the RNC. Three more nights, how are they going to top that? Governor Schwarzenegger and Mrs. Bush have a very tough act to follow.
Posted by Dan Spencer at August 31, 2004 08:24 AMYes, it was a good speech, one that stressed unity over divisiveness. And yet, will this convention be only about 9/11 and the War on Terror? What of the other issues? When will those be addressed?
Guiliani’s speech was absolutely amazing. Its central theme was that Bush responded to the 9/11 attacks. Good Grief! What President would not have responded? Charlie Brown would have responded. Cassius Clay would have responded. Hell, even PeeWee Herman would have responded had he been President. So we should reelect the man because he did something any American in office at the time would have done - go after al-Queda and Osama bin Laden. Tell you what, a whole lot of folks who had been President would have actually not been sidetracked by Iraq in their pursuit of al-Queda and OBL.
Guiliani’s case had absolutely no persuasive power whatsoever to any rational person seeking to understand why their vote should go to Bush.
Posted by: David R Remer at August 31, 2004 09:13 AMDavid,
Good Grief! What President would not have responded?
President Clinton would not have! Or, God forbid, President Gore!
MAW - Any President would have retalliated against the al-Queda after 9/11 - I believe this remark of yours to be very disingenuous. And quite frankly, incredible.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2004 10:27 AMMAW, do you really think the man who sent cruise missiles after Osama Bin Laden after the East Africa bombers would even hesitate to send troops into Afghanistan? And Gore… Gore was one of the most hawkish members of the Administration, pushing for an intervention in Bosnia from the start. When told that grabbing terrorists from foreign countries was technically illegal, Gore said lets get their asses. That is, by the way, why Ramzi Yousef rots in jail, unable to plan or carry out terrorist plots with his fellow terrorists. The Clinton Administration captured hundreds of such terrorists this way.
Clinton or Gore wouldn’t have worried about building in mission creep to the war on terror by failing to define the war as a pursuit of Al Quaeda first and foremost. He wouldn’t have stopped short, declaring that Osama was just not an important figure anymore. He wouldn’t gone to Iraq to fight a war on terror that had nothing to do with the terrorists who actually struck us.
My problem with Guiliani is that like Bush, he doesn’t have the wisdom to avoid alienating people. As a political observer, I’d say his speech undid a lot of the good that McCain’s speech could have done for Bush. McCain was the party trying to prove they were better, more inclusive, more bipartisan than the Democrats. Guiliani was them proving otherwise. Where McCain’s speech had me feeling proud to be a fellow American of his, Guiliani’s speech left me annoyed that we had to have political opponents like him.
Bush’s people have spent too much time simply playing to their base, instead of wooing the moderates and centrists. Where the Democrats made a consistent theme of reaching out to those who were patriotic, who were veterans, they at least had the sense to be consistent about their appeal. They didn’t have one person come on stage and appeal for greater decorum and statesmenship in the election, only to have the next speaker come on up and go on a viciously negative screed on the other candidate.
That is the schizophrenic face of your party, MAW: they want to claim the moral highground, yet play in the mud given the first opportunity.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2004 10:50 AMDavid, the fact remains that their are people on your side that actually think we had no business going into Afghanistan. One recently said in another post, “other than real estate, Afghanistan had nothing to do with terrorism.” This is not an uncommon belief from the far-left pacifists in this country. Your “who wouldn’t have” argument really doesn’t comfort me knowing this about many in your party and the people they nominate.
Aldaron, I assume by “people on my side” that you are referring to folks who do not believe invading Iraq when, and in the manner we did, was in our best interest.
Look, ignorance abounds! And it abounds on all sides of any issue. The simple fact is, all Americans from the President on down are ignorant regarding some or many aspects of our total national make-up and involvement with the world. That is precisely one of the main reasons, Cameron Barrett set up WatchBlog. So that folks could gain not only factual information amidst all the spin and hype, but, to also acquire insight from viewing a number of different perspectives on any given issue.
One thing we all have are opinions. Very different from facts and logical conclusions based on facts, opinions require nothing more than momentary belief in a proposition. The statement that some on one side are ignorant is really a meaningless statement, for that is true on all sides of any issue.
Though I doubt it, perhaps the person refer to meant that except for being home base for al-Queda and OBL, Afghanistan had little to do with terrorism. It is an odd statement to make since saying a nation is home base to a terrorist organization is pretty damning of that nation no matter how one interprets it. But if that statement was made ignoring the fact that Afghanistan was integral as the support base for the leadership of those who attacked us, then chalk it up to what it is. Ignorance. We are all guilty of it.
It is just that many here at Watchblog don’t put their ignorance on display, and contain their discussions to information, evidence, and facts of which they are familiar. Then again, there are many who do.
But, I have personally witnessed folks change their opinions on issues here at WatchBlog. I have done it myself, by way of acquiring information I did not have before. Guess that makes me a flip-flopper, but, I acquire some bit of pride from demonstrating to myself that at 54 years, I still have the ability and willingness to learn.
I think it is safe to say, that a huge majority of Americans believe invading Afghanistan was both justified and warranted. The evidence to support that proposition is overwhelming, and that opinion is shared not just here in the U.S., but pretty much throughout the world according to foreign press and polls. So, I wouldn’t get to worked up over such obvious minority viewpoints unless those folks can bring data, evidence, facts, and logical conclusions to the table to support such views.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2004 12:22 PMDavid and Stephen,
What is disingenuous is Clinton, after each and every attack on Americans and American soil said ‘those responsible would be hunted down and punished’.
Exactly when was he going to do this? Perhaps after a nuclear bomb went off in some populated area? After bombing the WTC in 93, when he never even bothered to visit, after bombings in Saudi Arabia killing 5 US military personel or perhaps after the Khobar towers were bombed killing 19. Oh of course bombing a US embassy when 224 people were killed certainly did nothing. And need I mention the USS Cole?
But the most egregious thing was sitting in his oval office using his “legal authority” to pardon all his crooks and friends when he should have sent bombers to blow up Osama instead it just might, might have gone a long way in saving lives on 9/11.
But of course, he had no “legal authority” for that! So don’t call me disingenuous.
And need I mention the USS Cole?
Well, since you mention it, the USS Cole was attacked on October 12, 2000. (Did Osama want Bush to win?) Bush became president three months later. What did he do? He ignored the writing on the wall.
Though I doubt it, perhaps the person refer to meant that except for being home base for al-Queda and OBL, Afghanistan had little to do with terrorism. It is an odd statement to make since saying a nation is home base to a terrorist organization is pretty damning of that nation no matter how one interprets it. But if that statement was made ignoring the fact that Afghanistan was integral as the support base for the leadership of those who attacked us, then chalk it up to what it is. Ignorance. We are all guilty of it.
Maybe not for you, but for all the women that lived under the Taliban, while the UN and other humanitarian agencies were either powerless to do anything about it or chose not to, seems to me terrorism of the worst kind.
The tragedy here David, is that it took a calamity of extraordinary proportions for anyone to do anything about any of it. And perhaps not the intended target, the Taliban and their vicious and distorted opinion of protecting women was destroyed in the process.
While good people sit around thinking how great they are, people are suffering all over the globe and nothing is done. How do we call ourselves a great nation when atrocities are happening all the time and people choose to look the other way.
This is the real human tragedy!
Ladies and Gentleman,
NEWS FLASH- 9/11 did not take place because of which political party was in the Whitehouse.
The main reason 9/11 happened and could happen again is due to the irresponsible way people do their job. From the leadership of Bush to the CIA Director, everyone failed to take the treat serious. And even the last line of defense, the FAA supervisors in Boston and DC failed in their responsiblities on standard operating procedures for a lost plane in flight.
If you care to be honest with yourself, you’ll remimber prior to 9/11 the republicans were crying about the democrats wanting to use our military as a police force for the worlds affairs to include terrorist activity. After 9/11 no one saying we shouldn’t play cop, but disagree over using 2000 lbs. bombs or specialized forces to hunt them down.
Could of, would of, should of is all fine and dandy in 20/20 hindsight, but welcome to the real world. As we seat here today, our country has been attacked again and our government has played it off. Have you asked yourself lately why the refiner oils in Texas did not have a news crew covering them? A total of six accidents in three- four weeks at different locations at a time when oil supplies were low is more than any stats of propability will say is an accident.
Saying that America is safer now than before 9/11 is misleading the American public. Can any man using a little bit of childhood imagination not find a way to destory a large area within 30 miles of where you live? Wake up, a person giving the right stuff could lay waste to any building, town, or facility at will Today.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 31, 2004 12:55 PMWell, since you mention it, the USS Cole was attacked on October 12, 2000. (Did Osama want Bush to win?) Bush became president three months later. What did he do? He ignored the writing on the wall.
Oh, please. Not the blame Bush rhetoric! Since Clinton was willing to take the wrath of letting his crooked friends off the hook, wouldn’t he have been just a bit nobler had he made a last, serious attempt to go after the person that declared war on us?
FYI, the USS Cole and all the other attacks were because of Clinton’s brilliant foreign policy that left American Troops in Saudi Arabia. Not because they wanted Bush to win!
“Well, since you mention it, the USS Cole was attacked on October 12, 2000….. What did he do? He ignored the writing on the wall.
Again, as if you and people that think like you would have supported him coming into office sending the military overseas in a big way. He ordered a comprehensive review of how we were dealing with the problem when he came into office. That is in the 9/11 report.
The issue of terrorism was ignored by both candidates in the 2000 election to their shame.
Henry…. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted by: Aldaron at August 31, 2004 01:16 PMHenry,
From the leadership of Bush to the CIA Director, everyone failed to take the treat serious.
More blame Bush rhetoric! At every opportunity. Do you really think the American public believes this? Unbelievable!
If you care to be honest with yourself, you’ll remimber prior to 9/11 the republicans were crying about the democrats wanting to use our military as a police force for the worlds affairs to include terrorist activity.
If you mean sending troops into Bosnia, yes Republicans were crying about using our military as a police force. And why aren’t Democrats crying about the UN sitting around doing nothing about anything!
So it should empower you to be honest here and realize the world is a dangerous place and there is no international body that has the guts, or the power to do anything about it. This should enrage everyone. Not that we went into Iraq! This is truly tragic and is getting progressively worse. And not because of Iraq. Go back and read Guiliani’s speech. Since Munich the world has looked the other way.
FYI, the USS Cole and all the other attacks were because of Clinton’s brilliant foreign policy that left American Troops in Saudi Arabia.
HAHAHAHAHA!
Let me get this straight: By leaving soldiers in the Middle East, Clinton provoked the terrorists.
Isn’t that the peacenik argument?
He ordered a comprehensive review of how we were dealing with the problem when he came into office.
Oooooo, a review. Isn’t Dubya supposed to be the man of action? Guess he needed a kick in the rear first.
This first night of the Republican Convention is a striking contrast to the Democratic convention in one detail September 11th played a central part, not an afterthought.
This typifies the difference between the two parties on this issue, I think. Democrats pay lipservice to the fact that we were attacked. For Republicans it is a rally cry.
The criticism from the left is that this is jingoist ultra-patriotic garbage that is manipulative and false. But what if it is the way people actually feel? Isn’t the left saying that these feelings are illegitimate?
I listened to a liberal author on the radio yesterday explaining how 9/11 would be ‘exploited’ at this convention. His argument boiled down to the idea that any mention of 9/11 would border on rhetorical criminality for the GOP. I disagree. It is a defining moment for America and should not forgotten. I fear the democratic party would be happy if we did just forget about it.
Forgive me if you are a democrat and this does not describe you. But I think the significance the left ascribes to 9/11 is different from that which normal Americans ascribe to it.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at August 31, 2004 01:44 PMMAW, I respect the sincerity of your argument. But, war is an evil in and of itself. Just ask the Pope, the Amish, the Quakers, the Buddhists. What good is served when we employ evil to destroy evil?
The 20th Century saw the greatest surge of democracy growth that we will probably ever witness. This despite our own efforts to overthrow at least one democracy, (Allende) as in Chile for the sake of copper. But the surge in democracy came by setting a shining example, not by force. By leading peoples, not by brutalizing them.
Human psychology is so very vital to this discussion. We led the Japanese and Germans to democracy after utterly vanquishing them in war. But, if Germany and Japan had not aggressed upon other nations and us, would we have been successful in invading their countries to force Democracy upon them? No, we would be fighting the population’s resistance to U.S. influence probably to this very day. We had the high moral ground, and they followed our lead.
To lead peoples to democracy we must have very high moral ground which acts as an invitation to emulation. I have never doubted that the Bush administration’s motives appear pure to them; to help the U.S. and other peoples of the world rid themselves of tyranny, attack, and suppression. But, the manner and timing of our invasion of Iraq has not served our end. It has grown our enemy’s ranks, rather than diminish them. And it lost us our high moral ground which we had in invading Afghanistan to rout those who attacked all free peoples in N.Y, as well as Americans on planes and in the Pentagon.
It continues to cost us moral ground with each day that witnesses destruction of Iraqi infrastructure, more deaths and casualties of American soldiers, and impediments and delays in ours, and the Iraqi interim government’s time table for establishing a government which is “in fact” in control. The threat of the Iraqi instability pouring over into neighboring nations is huge, and will spell defeat of most of the Bush administration’s stated aims for invading Iraq if it occurs.
The only justification for the evil of war or any kind of killing for that matter, is self-defense.
We lost the moral high ground when it was established for all the world to see, that Iraq posed no serious or imminent threat to the U.S. We must regain that moral ground, and further aggression upon sovereign nations will NOT regain that ground, regardless of whether we say it is for humanitarian reasons or not.
Our aggression now must be demonstrably focused and defended in world opinion as aimed directly at those terrorists who pose a serious and relatively short term threat to the American nation and its people, if we are to regain the high moral ground of leadership, and the alliances that our own government acknowledges is absolutely imperative to securing our nation in the long run.
George W. Bush cannot get us there. His views reflect this. Whether or not Kerry can get us there, is a huge question mark. But it is certain from Bush’s rhetoric, and view that the world outside our control is a threat, will definitely and uneqivocally fail to win the U.S. back the high moral ground and the leadership position it needs to win our security in the long run.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2004 01:44 PMPFP,
HAHAHAHAHA!
Let me get this straight: By leaving soldiers in the Middle East, Clinton provoked the terrorists.
I guess the laugh is because this is either the first time you realized this or you think it is funny.
So just to get you “straight” as you put it. Yes, having troops in Saudi Arabia and using our troops to get Saddam out of Kuwait caused OBL to start attacking the US. Is this news to you?
Oooooo, a review. Isn’t Dubya supposed to be the man of action? Guess he needed a kick in the rear first.
And I suppose going after OBL prior to 9/11 and taking preventative action would have had all the Dems praising him! The same praise he is getting now from Dems for going after Saddam, I suppose. How sad!
Spin! I love Spin!
Eric said: “This first night of the Republican Convention is a striking contrast to the Democratic convention in one detail September 11th played a central part, not an afterthought.”
Yep, it was shamefully used for political advantage, much as parading one’s dead brother’s body around the neighborhood to rally a mob in one’s quest for revenge. The Democrats had the good sense not to tear at peoples heart strings and healing wounds in order to garner support.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2004 02:00 PMDavid,
You continue to bring up what will not work. But there are no clear cut answers as to what will work! Do you believe that I don’t think there are more terrorist coming out of the woodwork now than before. I am not blind. Do you think that I think we are safe now. I am not that naïve.
In any operation, in any company any organization to effect real constructive change means a lot of issues and chaos that has to be dealt with. But to not make the changes necessary will either destroy a company or left behind in obsolescence.
And whether you choose to believe it or not. Freedom is not free. Many have paid with their lives for us to be able to sit here in freedom and do just this. To say that war is not necessary means that Jews deserved their fate in concentration camps. Or that slavery would have been accepted as a way of life. To say anything less dishonors the men and women in the military that have paid with their lives.
I am simply saying that to go back to the 8 years of the Clinton philosophy and even Bush 1, which was appeasement simply has not worked!
“We lost the moral high ground when it was established for all the world to see, that Iraq posed no serious or imminent threat to the U.S.
We did not lose the moral high ground. We gained a lot of respect from a lot of dictators. It is better to be feared when dealing with rogue states. Liberating Iraq is one of the noblest things this country has ever done. Its the fundamental difference in how Republicans and Democrats view this new world war we are in.
Posted by: Aldaron at August 31, 2004 02:14 PMMAW, How can you and others support bush on one hand and bash Clinton on the other when the Republican lead House failed in their duty to provide the weapons necessary to wage an effective war on UBL. The facts are that some idiot generals failed to follow through on Clintons Presidental order for taking UBL out. Yes, I can document this by the 9/11 Comission report on the now famous hunting trip of UBL. If you know the first thing about a spotter crew you would have known that they carry sniper rifles. Once asked if they could execute the orders the commanders in the area said NO! Is it Clintons fault that our military leaders at the time didn’t have the courage to netrualize a target by any means necessary?
Aldaron, It has been a Presidental Executive Order since 1970 that for any reason a FAA Control Tower loses contact with a plane for 5 minutes for whatever reason that they contact NORAD right than. The FAA supervisors in both Boston and DC failed in following this order. In fact, if you listen to the 9/11 report one of the stewerdest of the first plane was on her cell phone with the Boston tower telling them that the plane was being hijacked and the supervisor still waited an extra ten minutes to contact NORAD.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 31, 2004 02:20 PMMAW I agree with your statement, “I am simply saying that to go back to the 8 years of the Clinton philosophy and even Bush 1, which was appeasement simply has not worked!”
But your statement does not address the issue of our need for alliances and international faith in our efforts to diminish and eliminate to the extent possible, terrorist organizations whose enemies are those who would seek peaceful co-existence. Alliances and good faith restored do not constitute appeasement. Appeasement is giving in. Building alliances and good faith is strengthening ones stand and efforts.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2004 02:30 PMAldaron said: “Its the fundamental difference in how Republicans and Democrats view this new world war we are in”
I do not think that is true. There are many democrats, including John Kerry, who agree that liberating Iraq was a noble thing to do (in fact, even without the WMDs). There are also conservatives/isolationists like pat buchanan who believe that we shouldnt of liberated Iraq.
The problem is that the Micheal Moore wing of the democratic party is the most visible, but I think that a decent % of democrats (maybe its not more than 30%, but thats still a good chunk), realize that if they value human rights, force is sometimes needed to protect those rights.
David- you said: “The only justification for the evil of war or any kind of killing for that matter, is self-defense.”
Didnt you agree with me that we should have gone into Rwanda even though it was not in self-defense? Under the law, and under proper moral reasoning, defense of others is also a proper justification for the use of force. The standard for taking of life is NOT self-defense, it is “in defense of human life.” Otherwise, if you are killing my father or little brother, your moral reasoning would tell me that I cant stop you via deadly force. You cant seriously believe that, can you?
deposing a murderous dictator who has exteminated his own people and will continue to do so falls under this category. of course honorable people can disagree if it was the right place and time to have the iraq war, but the principle of using force to get rid of dictators and make sure dictators dont return is very solid indeed.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at August 31, 2004 02:31 PMAldaron said: “We did not lose the moral high ground. We gained a lot of respect from a lot of dictators. It is better to be feared when dealing with rogue states. Liberating Iraq is one of the noblest things this country has ever done. Its the fundamental difference in how Republicans and Democrats view this new world war we are in.”
Aldaron, you are so wrong up to the last sentence, (IMO) and so absolutely right in that last sentence. Let the elections determine whose lead will be followed and whose undermined by the opposition. For that is the state of American politics today, whether we want to admit it or not.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2004 02:35 PMFrom the Restatement of Torts §76:
A person is privileged to defend a third party under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which he is privileged to defend himself
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at August 31, 2004 02:37 PMMisha, glad to see your philosophical bent back in play with the demand for defining one’s terminology. Self defense is not an absolute concept. It depends on how one defines self. Self can be me. Self can by a nation. Self can be a family. As in, a family has the right to defend itself, a nation has a right to defend itself, as I have.
In the context of Rwanda, humanity has a right to defend itself against inhuman acts. (Given the Kantian Utilitarian ethic which I explained in another comment and you missed or chose not to respond to.)
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2004 02:49 PMMAW,
You left out the peacenik part.
I am laughing because it ridiculous to blame Clinton for provoking the terrorists by leaving troops in Saudi Arabia, then turn around and praise Bush for taking the aforementioned troops and using them to invade Iraq.
If Clinton had taken the troops out to pacify Bin Laden, then he would have been practicing the very appeasement that you criticize.
Stephen:
Where McCain’s speech had me feeling proud to be a fellow American of his, Guiliani’s speech left me annoyed that we had to have political opponents like him.
An important point is that neither McCain nor Giuliani were speaking to you. That’s not to disparage you or your opinion, but rather to state that you are not the target audience. Both men could have issued a soliliquoy to the wisdom of the left, and could have claimed to be taking the Republican party in that direction, and you would still vote for Kerry.
So, no offense intended, but your opinion on the speeches is not all that relevant. I wouldnt expect you to like much about the Republican Convention, just as you wouldnt have expected me to like much about the Dem convention. Its the fringe voters, and from what I see, THEY liked the speeches. THEY are the target audience.
Joebag,
I beg to differ. I didn’t think the speeches addressed me at all. Just the party faithful. 9/11 is not policy, just emotional strings. I ask both parties, please, pretty please, give me a reason to vote FOR your candidate instead of against the other.
Posted by: CER at August 31, 2004 04:20 PMIn the first days after 9/11, we knew who the bad guys were – They were the ones who planned and carried out the attacks, period – and we were right. Only the insane quibbled about whether Bush or Clinton or any other American was responsible in some round about way.
McCain and Guiliani were talking about unity of Americans and harkening back to 9/11 to rekindle it. That is what I saw and heard when I watched the convention. McCain and Guiliani were speaking to all Americans, but not everyone heard them. You can’t tell someone more than he is ready to hear.
Posted by: jack at August 31, 2004 04:43 PMjack, and you can have anyone believe a deception if they are wanting to believe it. Hucksterism and scams survive very profitably on the this concept.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2004 04:50 PMCER:
Perhaps you are right. I guess I may have overstated the target, though I think I’m on safe ground that Democrats are NOT the target of the Republican Convention, and vice versa.
I’d suggest you consider Bush for the following reasons:
**The economy has withstood 9-11, the accounting scandals, and the tech bubble bursting, and is still moving forward.
**The economy, which was in a downturn when Bush took office, has shown steady improvement after the Bush tax cuts.
**Jobs are being created at the rate of 1.5 million over the past 11 months.
**The number of casualties in Iraq have greatly diminished, showing that the tide is turning.
**Bush is resolute in his direction, whereas Kerry seems to meander. This country needs decisive leadership.
**Bush brings vital continuity in the war against terror.
Now, of course, those opposed to Bush can take potshots at my reasoning, and most likely will. But you asked for reasons to vote FOR a candidate, as opposed to voting AGAINST a candidate. There are many other issues that are more partisan in nature, meaning that you get to choose a candidate who agrees with your stance. Among these are abortion, stem cell research, faith based organizations etc.
Good luck in determining which candidate you want to vote for. I think I made it clear where my vote will go, though in our present system, my vote will still be disenfranchised since my state is already decided, for all intents and purposes.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 31, 2004 04:53 PMAnd need I mention the USS Cole?
I don’t remember Reagan going after terrorists after the barracks bombing.
Each of us will read into the speeches what we want to hear. Those on the left will hear the rhetoric they expected, those on the right will hear what they expected, those in the middle will wonder what they just heard.
David
You can only have Kantian peace if you or someone else is willing to defend your interests in the Hobbesian world. People that trust others to do it for them usually end up working for their benefactors (in unpleasant roles).
Posted by: jack at August 31, 2004 05:15 PMjack, certainly sounds like an irrational and wholly simplistic response to me. Care to elaborate what you mean by that comment?
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2004 05:32 PMAlso, jack, note that I used the term Kantian Utilitarian. Not Kantian alone. There is a huge canyon of difference, as the joining of Kantian and Utilitarian ethics incorporates a guide to action in a Hobbesian world.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2004 05:37 PMMisha, if John Kerry thinks liberating Iraq was a noble thing, I want him to come out just once and say it.
David, the reason you think I am so wrong in the first couple of sentences is exactly because of that last sentence. Alas though, the election is going to be so close, it will not “determine anything”(as you say) no matter who wins.
Henry, I learned something new today. thanks.
Posted by: Aldaron at August 31, 2004 06:03 PMRocky,
I don’t remember Reagan going after terrorists after the barracks bombing.
Each of us will read into the speeches what we want to hear. Those on the left will hear the rhetoric they expected, those on the right will hear what they expected, those in the middle will wonder what they just heard.
You are totally correct.
Read http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=3404 ">Guiliani’s Speech . He went after all administrations since 1972. In fact that is where he puts the blame, not on Democrats or Republicans, this Administration or Clinton’s. He blames them all.
*****
“And the world had created a response to it that allowed it to succeed. The attack on the Israeli team at the Munich Olympics was in 1972. And the pattern had already begun.
The three surviving terrorists were arrested and within two months released by the German government.
Action like this became the rule, not the exception.
Terrorists came to learn they could attack and often not face consequences.
In 1985, terrorists attacked the Achille Lauro and murdered an American citizen who was in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer.
They marked him for murder solely because he was Jewish.
Some of those terrorist were released and some of the remaining terrorists allowed to escape by the Italian government because of fear of reprisals. “
*****
It started long ago and yes he blamed Republican Administrations as well, not just Democratic Administrations. A trait you will be hard pressed to find in a Democratic Administration,
If President Bush’s response to Iraq was over the top, then perhaps if we had been responsible citizens of the world, this would not have gone on this long.
Aldaron- He lacks any political courage to say that. But from his statements in the 1990s, his vote for this war I can extrapolate reasonably that he understands that getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do. Kerry attempted to lean way left on this issue to catch Dean, and he did so. The problem is now he has compromised the position that I believe he holds, and has held, that Saddam is a tyrrant
that needed to be removed. Of course, I cannot vote for someone with so little political courage- but i take SOME comfort in the fact that a president Kerry would not take the isoluation approach of the Moore wing of the party would want him to adopt.
Joebag wrote:
**The economy has withstood 9-11, the accounting scandals, and the tech bubble bursting, and is still moving forward.
TRANSLATION: We lose 30,000 people every year to murder and traffic accidents, of course we survived 9-11. If Cheney, #41 & #43 can commit fraud and murder with impunity, why can’t everyone else? Screwed again, but life goes on, vote for Bush.
**The economy, which was in a downturn when Bush took office, has shown steady improvement after the Bush tax cuts.
TRANSLATION: Excuses and hogwash. Did somebody say tax cuts? Screwed again, vote for Bush.
**Jobs are being created at the rate of 1.5 million over the past 11 months.
TRANSLATION: If you look forward to making $9,000 less this year than you made last year, screwed again, vote for Bush.
**The number of casualties in Iraq have greatly diminished, showing that the tide is turning.
TRANSLATION: Unnecessary death and destruction with WMD’s that put Hussien to shame, screwed again, vote for Bush.
**Bush is resolute in his direction, whereas Kerry seems to meander. This country needs decisive leadership.
TRANSLATION: Reckless stupidity can easily be confused with decisiveness, vote for Bush.
**Bush brings vital continuity in the war against terror.
TRANSLATION: The dead, dismembered, blinded and disabled in the tens of thousands are virtually all innocents caught in the crossfire. Hail to exportation and proliferation of terror outside U.S. borders and war profiteering. Screwed again, vote for Bush.
CER:
AS I predicted, someone has stepped up to the plate to bash Bush, based on my comments. I suppose thats easier than trying to say why she likes her candidate. I did note that Bayviking mentioned not one single thing about her candidate. I guess that might mean her candidate is anyone but Bush.
I hope you can tell the difference between the shrill bleating and the reasoned discourse. I’d expect you to make up your own mind, but beware, you never know who your bedfellows will be.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 31, 2004 09:36 PMJoebag,
Thanks very much for answering my question. So often these comments turn into political ads bashing the other candidate which really just muddies the water instead of clarifying the issues. Even though this is cliche, it seems to me that the negativity only serves to turn voters away, not bring them to the table.
CER:
You are welcome—hope it helped you see why I think Bush is the one to vote for.
Unfortunately, I’d have to say that evidence shows that negativity works. Everyone says they hate it, but year after year, it shows up as being remembered.
You can see in BayViking’s response to my post that she sees the negative side of things clearly, but has no positives to add. It is indicative of the common voter as well, who hears negatives and remembers them.
Its called “gap analysis” in which we discard all the good things, but remember the gaps, or bad things. Kinda like a parent who sees their child get all “A”s except for one, and they ask the child what happened in that class.
Its best to start with the good about each candidate, then the bad, and then a comparison of the candidates, in my opinion.
Best of luck to you in choosing the right candidate to vote for and the right candidate for our country.
Posted by: Joebagodonuts at September 1, 2004 11:40 AMJoebag et al -
Okay, I’ll take a shot.
Vote for Kerry because:
*He wants to repeal the tax cuts that haven’t been successful in turning the economy around. The job growth in this country is still negative. This is because we need 140,000 new jobs a month to break even with a growing workforce.
*Kerry is a decorated war veteran who served his country with distinction. Anyone who takes exception to this because of what some other veterans have been saying should first explain why the guy they support and the majority of his inner circle used draft deferments and/or the national guard to avoid going to Vietnam.
*Kerry came back from Vietnam and spoke openly about the horrors of war, and said publicly that he was not supportive of it anymore. Some people think it was bad to do this, but I think it shows courage and resolve.
*Kerry is a very intelligent person. In times of complex issues and problems, I believe we should have a president who has a great mind, considers many viewpoints, and is willing to change when it’s the right thing to do even though some people will brand him a flip flopper.
*Kerry supports stem cell research, which scientists expect will provide the greatest quality of life benefits for the future.
*Kerry would work to repeal the Patriot Act, which is an infringement on basic civil liberties.
*Kerry supports universal healthcare in an era where healthcare costs have risen considerably and nothing’s being done about it.
*Kerry supports developing energy alternatives to reduce our dependence on foreign oil sources.
*Kerry has pledged to rework environmental regulations based on conservation, sustainable use, and pollution control as opposed to what energy lobbyists ask for.
These are some of the reasons I’m voting for Kerry.
Posted by: Nate at September 1, 2004 02:22 PMDavid,
But your statement does not address the issue of our need for alliances and international faith in our efforts to diminish and eliminate to the extent possible, terrorist organizations whose enemies are those who would seek peaceful co-existence. Alliances and good faith restored do not constitute appeasement. Appeasement is giving in. Building alliances and good faith is strengthening ones stand and efforts.
I agree completely with this statement. Nothing is more important than alliances and solid international relationships with our allies. But I continue to be confused by your statements and Kerry’s statements that we have failed to build that coalition.
Don’t you agree that in saying this we have just alienated all those that have helped in this war on terror? Do you dismiss them as would be followers of the US? I am completely at a loss whenever I hear this. Not just from you but from those on the left that continue this diatribe as if it where the divine truth!
Say what you mean when you speak of this! You mean that France, Germany and Russia did not follow us into Iraq. And today, after hearing about the terror that Russia is facing just this past week with planes blown out of the sky and armed Chechnyan rebels storming a school thereby striking fear in the hearts of every mother and father in the world with the realization of just how debased these people are.
And of course we can not leave out France and the attempts to murder 2 Frenchmen because of all things HeadScarves! Look around and see where we are! It is insane to blame or expect the US to sit by and not make an attempt to fight this scourge especially when it is in defense of ourselves. I mean this sincerely.
It is a shame that France, Russia and Germany wanted nothing to do with supporting us in the war on Iraq aka war on terror. And before you go down the road of the war on Iraq had nothing to do with terror, spare me! I’ve heard all the arguments.
David, I enjoy your posts immensely, but please try to explain how you can get every nation in the world to agree on any one thing, when you can’t even expect that in citizens of any single nation. This ever increasing scourge must be dealt with and the UN has certainly not stepped up to the plate!
MAW said “But I continue to be confused by your statements and Kerry’s statements that we have failed to build that coalition.”
I am no proponent of Kerry. When I refer to an absent coalition I DO NOT mean Germany, France and Russia. I mean Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, and UAE in addition to whatever European countries within the consequential danger range of Iraq to establish a government capable of policing its violent factions. Iraq is a regional problem capable of potential regional threat. Regional nations should be carrying the brunt of the costs to insure Iraq ceases to be a threat to neighboring and regional nations.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 2, 2004 12:28 AMThanks David,
I appreciate that answer and I am certain that you would include Iran in that regional threat. Does it appear to you that any of these nations are stepping up to the plate where Iran is concerned?
Wouldn’t you agree that there is more of a regional coalition surrounding North Korea’s nuclear threats? And the religious fanaticism that exists in the Middle East makes a coalition practically impossible, unlike North Korea.
