Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Amazing! Who’d have ever thought that one might run into fighting drunks at a Toby Keith concert?

Nice info. Eric, although most liberals will probably believe, deep down, that Barton had it coming to him for supporting Bush and the Iraqi people.

The majority of the left would be supporting the war, and the troops, if good ol Al would have won the election, but since its a Republican, they must instead vilify it solely for political gain.

Eric,
To me, this is the legacy of Vietnam and the anti-war movement’s more radical elements. Isn’t it great that the left wants us all to relive those glorious ‘revolutionary’ times?

What about the right trying to do the same thing they did in the Nixon Administration? Hiding the truth from Mr.&Mrs. America is not hip!

kctim, we support the troops. We don’t support the misleading that it took to put them over there. As much as the Right would love to think, supporting the troops does not require supporting the Administration.

If a single soldier getting beaten up by a drunken lout counts as a pattern of behavior, then I submit the guy who stomped on a female protestor while she was restrained by three Secret Service agents at the RNC.

The fact remains that the rhetoric of anger coming from the left is creating a climate for these kinds of actions.

It even extends to the candidate’s wife,

She dismissed voters skeptical of her husband’s health-care proposals as “idiots,” and, in a television interview with a Pittsburgh anchorwoman, employed the word “scumbags” to describe some of her detractors. newyorker

I recall under the Bush administration, in an effort to discredit republican electoral victories, an entire year was labeled the year of the ‘angry white male’. Today the Democratic party is the party of the ‘angry partisan’.

CJOZ: The anti-Bush marches, disguised as anti-war marches, started way before the news of WMD’s not being found.

“supporting the troops does not require supporting the Administration”
- You are absolutley correct about this, but when clinton bombed bosnia and thousands of civilians were killed, were thousands of people marching against this war?
NO, because clinton is a liberal and all the so-called anti-war marchers agreed with his socialistic view of America. They couldn’t march against clinton because it would make him look bad, which would make gore look bad, which would hurt his chance of becoming president. Purely political.
NO, because when this happens, troop morale drops and it shows a divided nation. Enemies know a divided nation is weak and its troops can be beaten. So if making our soldiers feel bad about what they are doing and encouraging the men who kill them, all for a political belief, is “supporting our troops” to you, I am afraid you are wrong.

The guy at the RNC was also wrong, he more than likely did that because she disliked Bush. He should have been arrested.

[…] although most liberals will probably believe, deep down, that Barton had it coming to him for supporting Bush and the Iraqi people.

The majority of the left would be supporting the war, and the troops, if good ol Al would have won the election, but since its a Republican, they must instead vilify it solely for political gain.

Yikes! What partisan bigotry.

For those of us who lived through the anti-military mood of the late sixties and early seventies, this comes as no great surprise. I don’t know that there were wholesale beatings or even spitting on military people in those days because I never personally saw it, but I do know from experience that some communities and campuses were a very threatening environment for anyone in uniform.

It was not at all uncommon for those of us who were assigned to jobs in civilian surroundings, like recruiters and ROTC staff members, to wear only civilian clothes while traveling to and from work because of the potential for harrassment and violence. One large office building in which I worked used to get at least one or two bomb threats a week.

Depending on how things go in the months ahead, I would not be at all surprised to see more and more of those who “support the troops but not the war” begin to drop that facade.

Bottom Line:

Iraq is bullshit.
Bullshit gets people angry.
Good sense is enough to restrain most anger from erupting into physical violence.
Crowds and Alcohol have both been known to check good sense.
Anger - Good Sense = Violence, etc.

It’s the same sort of blind bigotry and close-mindedness that leads a drunk to beat a soldier (from behind, no less) that leads people to say things like “Eric, although most liberals will probably believe, deep down, that Barton had it coming to him for supporting Bush and the Iraqi people.

The majority of the left would be supporting the war, and the troops, if good ol Al would have won the election, but since its a Republican, they must instead vilify it solely for political gain.” kctim

No one should be belittled or attacked (or dismissed) simply because they have a different opinion, even if that opinion is that we are fighting the wrong war.

Bush and some troops are recreating Viet Nam

BAGHDAD (AP) — The U.S. military has charged two U.S. soldiers with murder in the deaths of three Iraqis, the U.S. command said today.

To win Kerry needs more than a few liberal big-citys. These anti-war protesters need to bring their message to the heartland, spit on a few soliders, jump one from behind, whatever you need to do to get the liberal anti-war message across.
Folks in the heartland are very caring and generous, I’ll betcha the folks in “podunk USA” would foot the bill to have Hanoi Jane/John protesters bused in so they could get thier message out to the hicks.

Alejo: Bigotry? I spoke of liberals in a bad way, so I am a bigot? I can only speak bad of Democrats, Neocons and Republicans for my statements to be considered fair? Talk about being close-minded.

I did not belittle or attack anyone. I said that the majority of protesters who are marching and whining about this war, were no where to be heard when clinton bombed bosnia. If it were truley the act of war you are against, and not just the party in control, then you should have been marching by the thousands to condemn bosnia as well.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and I respect that right, but I do not have to respect the opinion.
In my opinion, this war is wrong. I am totally against it because I do not believe our troops should be dying for other countries.
I cannot respect an opinion that says, this war is wrong, I am against this war because Bush is president. clinton was a liberal, so his war was ok, but since Bush is not a liberal, his war is wrong.

Bush and some troops are recreating Viet Nam

BAGHDAD (AP) — The U.S. military has charged two U.S. soldiers with murder in the deaths of three Iraqis, the U.S. command said today.

Posted by David R Remer at September 22, 2004 04:40 PM

Bush and some troops are recreating Vietnam? Exactly how is Bush doing that, David?

The real story here is that the military arrested two of its uniformed employees for murder. That’s what happens when murder occurs. The system worked.

If this was a case of two disgruntled postal employees blowing up a post office, you’d probably be saying “Bush and some federal employees are recreating the Oklahoma City bombing!”

I did not belittle or attack anyone.

Let’s review:

although most liberals will probably believe, deep down, that Barton had it coming to him for supporting Bush and the Iraqi people.

You have a few things going on here. First you accuse most liberals of condoning assault and battery against US soldiers. Doesn’t that amount to an attack on character? Then you imply that these feelings are deep down, i.e. hidden, that most liberals can’t face up to this inner asshole you suspect them of having as evidenced by the first point. Finally you use the phrase “supporting […] the Iraqi people” under the assumption that most liberals who are against the war don’t care one wit about Iraqis (which you admit of yourself).

The majority of the left would be supporting the war, and the troops, if good ol Al would have won the election, but since its a Republican, they must instead vilify it solely for political gain.

Here you seem to portray the majority of the left as completely without reason or scruples. That most liberals would abandon principles simply because that’s what all the other Democrats are doing. This combined with the first insinuation that most liberals would condone battery against US soldiers simply because they hate Bush, sounds extremely derogatory.

Take out “most” and replace it with “the liberals I know” and I’ll be fine with your “opinion.”

can we focus on something for just one second….

instead of this ohhh liberals will hate this and think he had it coming…

or this ohhh conservatives will hate this because it shows liberal hatred…

a man was beaten….for just sighting his views….

it makes about as much sense as giving someone with a bush/cheney bumper sticker the finger as they pass you on the freeway…

everyone is entitled to their view, and the right to express that view.

i feel awful that someone was beaten for wearing a t-shirt that said whatever, but i feel just as bad when i hear about cops beating up protesters who were assembling legally…and not causing trouble…

passion for ones politics is a healty thing, but when you resort to violence against those who disagree with you…well…you prove how precious our freedom of speech really is, by making a martyr out of the one you harm.

please keep your eyes on the ball kids…it’s not about right or left….it’s about a man getting beat up.

shame on any of you for making this into politics.

Well we did fail in Iraq, maybe thats why everyone is so mad.

How exactly did we fail in Iraq when our people are still there and the process is still ongoing? That must do wonders for the morale of our people there to know that there are people like you that think we have failed before the assignment is completed.

Rob:

A big bag of Krispy Kreme crullers for you!!! Right on target!!

Good for you Rob. Well said.

*****

The people who are responsible for fueling the anger should be held accountable and removed from office and/or their jobs.

Being against the war is fine but when it is used to create hate, anger, violence and division amongst the people of a country for political gain it has to be exposed and dealt with.

Ask yourselves - ANYBODY BUT BUSH ??????

Yes, I commend rob, too. It is a shame that Eric had to use this one unfortunate act of violence as a political attack on the left which kctim was more than happy to pile on.

And by the way: There was an anti-war movement for Bosnia.

It is a shame that Eric had to use this one unfortunate act of violence as a political attack on the left which kctim was more than happy to pile on.

I’m just pointing out the facts, folks. The democratic party chose to go down this road during a time of war. We are seeing a party destroy itself for want of power. A party willing to destroy the country in order to save it.

As further evidence that Vietnam is the template for the Democrats to defeat Bush who’s calling for a draft? And blaming it on Republicans? Ah, for those good old days of burning draft cards and protests bringing down a President.

Former Kerry rival Howard Dean, now traveling the country to drum up support for Kerry and raise money for Democratic candidates, said last week at Brown University in Providence, R.I., “I think that George Bush is certainly going to have a draft if he goes into a second term, and any young person that doesn’t want to go to Iraq might think twice about voting for him.”

The leadership of the Democratic Party really does want to bring back the spirit of 1968: the anger, the societal divisions, the distrust, the protests in the streets, and the cultivation of an anti-American subculture. And their own lawmakers are introducing legislation to reinstate the draft in order to make it happen. Not one Republican has signed on to the legislation restoring the draft, and Rummy and Co. have sworn to high heaven that they don’t want one or need one — it would create more problems than it solves.

I have many Democratic friends who I think highly of. Well, I hope they’re proud of their leaders in this shining moment. NRO

How’s that for scare tactics?

On Sept. 12th if you would have told me that Democrats would have tried to blame Bush for the tragedy I wouldn’t have believed it. Yet, the left has had no problem blaming Bush at all.

Forged documents? No problem, the charges are true even if the documents are fake! From Michael Moore to Howard Dean to John Kerry, the left is burning the bridges of political civility.

you mean they are starting to act like republicans…..

rob, quite right. Where is the mention of the woman who lost her job for having a Kerry bumper sticker on her car? It is a shame, and it was great that the Kerry campaign gave her a job after being fired. But, the incident hardly means Republicans support firing all liberals in this country, anymore than the soldiers beating means liberals want to deport all conservatives.

These incidents have only one global implication for America, and that is that politics have become emotionally charged and as divisive as ever. Beyond that, little can be said universally from these incidents about conservatives or liberals.

Damn, let me get this straight..hep hemmm Those who are responsible for feuling the anger should be held accountable and be removed from their office and/or their jobs.

Dawn thank-you, I love that “BYE GEORGE!!!!! Bye!!!!”

Oh and “Joseph Briggs”, thank you for founding mormonism it’s a fine religion.

Now how do they really know it was the t-shirt and wasn’t just a guy in a crew cut staring at the daisy dukes of some toothless rednecks girlfriend’s ass.

What if it was the fact that he may have been the only one there without a mullet. Maybe he yelled out trailerhomes are for losers, see we don’t know what it was. It could have been that he just looked very “hittable” in some bars that’s just cause.

And hitting him with a bottle, that tells you right there the guy just couldn’t resist hitting him he was just very very “hittable”. I’ve seen his picture I say “hittable” and I don’t know why.

Funny about the draft. CheDemocratic Underground poster Dems Will Win obtained an unpublicized military draft planning document through a Freedom of Information Act request, seen first here on theBlatantTruth! Please read this! BushCo is planning to conscript everybody up to the age of 34 for all kinds of duty!

From Democratic Underground poster Dems Will Win comes this urgent explanation of the paper’s significance:

Please distribute this content and the official SSS draft document, the Feb. 11, 2003 “Issue Paper,” to all college newspaper editors, in LTTEs [letters to the editor] and mass e-mails.

This is a SPECIAL MILITARY DRAFT ALERT. In May, the Seattle Post Intelligencer published an article about a document they received through the Freedom of Information Act. It was revealed that the SSS is currently “designing procedures” for the implementation of a “Skills Draft” and had held a top-level meeting on it with Deputy Undersecretaries at the Defense Department. This draft would change the essential mission of the Selective Service and require “virtually every young American,” male and female ages 18–34, to register for the Skills Draft and list all the occupations they are proficient in to fill labor shortages throughout nearly the entire government. If enacted, the Skills Draft proposed in this FOI-recovered document would change America as we know it.

The Pentagon is suffering from immediate labor shortages. Recently, the inactive Ready Reserve had to be called up for the first time since the Gulf War to fill 5,600 job shortages in the Armed Forces. DoD said in the recent IRR callup “20% of the call-ups are truck drivers, 12% are supply specialists who can use a computer to track supplies, 10% are Humvee mechanics, 7% are administrative specialists and 6% are combat engineers” (USA Today, August 8, 2004).

Although Congress would have to approve new legislation to create a Skills Draft or reinstate the combat draft, Family Circle reported in its July 13 issue that Karl Rove had polled GOP members of Congress in September 2002 to see if they would support the President if he requests reinstatement. The Republicans said they would vote for the draft. They would likely support the new legislation needed to create the Skills Draft. While Bush and the Republicans are of course keeping the return of the draft and the new skills draft as quiet as possible, many anti-draft organizations have recently begun warning of a “Coming New Draft.”

The Issue Paper document was revealed through the Freedom of Information Act by Seattle Post Intelligencer reporter Eric Rosenberg, who wrote a partial explanation of it that was printed May 1, 2004.

Rosenberg’s article was edited, however, and some key points about this document were omitted in the published article. What follows is a full explanation of the document.

This document is real, having been acknowledged by the DoD and the SSS when they said no action is being taken on it at the present time. However, given the current manpower shortages for certain skills and nurses, if Bush gets back in, expect all the options outlined in the Issue Paper to be implemented by the end of December of this year, and at the least a non-combat skills and medical draft to start next year, if not the male combat draft, ages 18–25.

Despite Rumsfeld saying the draft is not needed, this is the same neo-con administration that has repeatedly lied to and misled the American people. Draft-age youth and their families are left looking at a “long, hard slog” in Iraq (Rumsfeld secret memo), the neo-con plans to invade still more nations, and then having to take Rumsfeld and Cheney’s word not to worry about the draft, that they “are not considering it at this time.”

Although official word is that this secret list of options is not being implemented—the Issue Paper options have NOT been rejected and the 6-page proposal is rather sitting in the Pentagon, waiting. In addition, the SSS itself has said that it is “designing procedures” (Seattle PI, May 1, 2004) to implement the skills draft, meaning designing the compliance cards and the data fields needed to keep track of “virtually every young American” and their skills. Acting Director of the SSS Brodsky has also said the Skills Draft is the “top priority” of the Selective Service for 2004.

From the FOI document, we now know that on February 11, 2003, Charles Abell, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and William Carr, Deputy Undersecretary for Military Personnel Policy, met with Lewis Brodsky, the Acting Director of the Selective Service and some other officials. This is the highest-level meeting you could have about the Selective Service, outside of Rumsfeld and his inner circle. They were there to discuss the urgent “issue paper” now revealed, which starts: “With known shortages of military personnel with certain critical skills, and with the need for the nation to be capable of responding to domestic emergencies as a part of Homeland Security Planning, changes should be made in the Selective Service System’s registration program and primary mission.”

Although it would require changes in current draft law, the far-reaching proposal shows how far the Republicans are going to plan and prepare for a huge expansion of the draft. The Issue Paper options include:

Change the very mission of the SSS to become a massive conscription service in the War on Terror for the entire government.
Conscript men and women in a critical skills non-combat draft up to age 34 with no deferments of any kind, except “essential community service” (like the Medical Draft).
Allow a non-combat draft for shortages in critical skills, without calling a combat draft.
Fill labor shortages of all kinds throughout not only DoD but the whole government, especially high-paying professionals like computer networking specialist or linguist.
Create a massive database of “virtually every young American” ages 18 to 34. This database would be used to draft in war and to recruit in peacetime. State and even local governments would be given access to the names for recruitment and help in emergencies.
Create a single-point, all-inclusive database, in which every young person would be forced to send in a “self-declaration” of all of their critical skills, chosen from a long list of occupations like the Armed Forces Specialty Code. The self-declaration is similar to IRS compliance and the filling out and signing of your tax forms. All young people would be required to keep the government updated if they acquired a new skill. SSS Compliance forms will be available at every Post Office. The usual penalties of imprisonment and/or a $250,000 fine would apply to all non-registrants.
A draft or recruitment could be for any one of the skills you self-declare on the compliance form, not your current or primary skill. This greatly increases your chance of being drafted if you are 18–34.
Bring the Medical Draft (HCPDS) up to speed and fully test it through readiness exercises.
Reduce induction time from being able to deliver all inductees in 193 days down to just 90 days for skills inductees.
This secret paper urges the mission be changed “promptly,” meaning they really need it, it would draft for the Pentagon as well as the enormous Homeland Security branches as well as other government agencies, even state and local!

For obvious political reasons, the decision was made by Bush, Cheney and Rove to sit on this 6-page proposal until after the election in November. Yet the SSS was told to go ahead and begin “designing procedures” for the Skills Draft in 2004 and make it their “top priority.” It can be expected that if Bush gets back in, and the DoD and SSS are still asking for the Skills Draft, the “Next Steps” part of the document will be put into action and the most expansive option to change the SSS mission will be rapidly legislated.

In the secret planning meeting document, the next steps strongly recommended by SSS Acting Director Brodsky were:

1. “Promptly” redefine the SSS Mission to draft men and women up to age 34 for skills, and deliver them within 90 days or sooner to the Department of Defense. Program a massive database to be ready to enter millions of names of those registering their critical skills.

2. Expand mission to deliver personnel in skills draft to the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies, including FEMA, NSC, Border Patrol, INS, Customs, Corporation for National Service, Public Health Service and other federal, state and local government agencies.

3. Form interagency task force to provide Administration with recommendation on this skills draft for the entire DHS and the rest of the government.

4. Obtain White House Statement of Administration Policy on the future of the SSS.

5. Be prepared to market the skills draft, raising the non-combat age to 34 and the drafting of women to the Armed Services and Appropriations Committee.

This proposed expansion of the draft, forcing all people under 35 to register with the SSS, man or woman, is primarily proposed, according to the document, because the cost of providing contract professionals, like computer network specialists, would be “prohibitive.” In this way, the proposed Skills Draft would help preserve Bush’s massive tax cuts for the wealthy by lowering the massive budget deficits.

That’s the new Skills Draft and the secret document behind it. But what about the Combat Draft?

Selective Service has been registering young men for over twenty years and at any moment the President can go to Congress and ask them to reauthorize conscription for the male combat draft for ages 18–25. It doesn’t take much to imagine a re-elected Bush going to Congress and saying “We cannot cut and run from Iraq or the War on Terror. I need you to reauthorize conscription.”

And they would not have to pass a whole new draft law to do it. All that is needed is a “trigger resolution,” which could be passed in the dead of night—and bingo! No debate, no regular bill, just a short resolution passed quickly and the draft for men 18 to 25 is back.

That is why the Democratic draft resolution being offered by Rangel and Hollings is totally irrelevant. These are known protest bills and actually propose drafting women for the combat draft, just to make sure they will never see the light of day. Rangel and Hollings offered them to raise the issue and confront Bush. Hollings even said he wouldn’t vote for his own bill!

They are not needed—and the press and the Republicans will bring them up as red herrings to distract everyone from what is really going on: the Republicans, and the SSS are quietly, behind the scenes, oiling up the draft machinery—getting ready to reinstate for the Spring of 2005. Taken singly, each of the clues indicating the return and expansion of the draft might seem insignificant but when you add them all up with what the Selective Service is doing to gear up the combat draft, a clear pattern emerges, leading to the inescapable conclusion that a Bush re-election will see not only a Skills Draft, but a return of the Combat Draft as well… . read the rest, print and distribute.

Is military draft in the works?
Andrew Greeley
Chicago Sun-Times, April 24, 2004

Agency initiates steps for selective draft
Congress shows little support for effort to draw skilled Americans
Eric Rosenberg
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 13, 2004

WASHINGTON—The government is taking the first steps toward a targeted military draft of Americans with special skills in computers and foreign languages… .

Draft Creep
David Wiggins
Independent Media Magazine, January 10, 2004
The author is a West Point distinguished graduate and honors graduate of New York Medical College who resigned his Army Captain commission as a Conscientious Objector during Operation Desert Storm:

… Draft creep is a sneaky draft. There is no congressional debate, and no new law is passed for the President to sign. Nonetheless, people are being forced into military service against their will. In other words, they are being drafted, conscripted, or whatever you care to call it. The government chooses to call it “Stop Loss,” and it applies to members of the armed forces. After all, what better way is there to initiate a sneaky draft than to start with the group of people least likely to object to a draft, and at the same time, with the least legal rights to fight one? …

More about “Stop-Loss”:

Army Stops Many Soldiers from Quitting
Lee Hockstader, Washington Post, December 29, 2003

… thousands of soldiers [are] forbidden to leave military service under the Army’s “stop-loss” orders, intended to stanch the seepage of troops, through retirement and discharge, from a military stretched thin by its burgeoning overseas missions… .

Through a series of stop-loss orders, the Army alone has blocked the possible retirements and departures of more than 40,000 soldiers, about 16,000 of them National Guard and reserve members who were eligible to leave the service this year. Hundreds more in the Air Force, Navy and Marines were briefly blocked from retiring or departing the military at some point this year.

By prohibiting soldiers and officers from leaving the service at retirement or the expiration of their contracts, military leaders have breached the Army’s manpower limit of 480,000 troops, a ceiling set by Congress. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, disclosed that the number of active-duty soldiers has crept over the congressionally authorized maximum by 20,000 and now registered 500,000 as a result of stop-loss orders. Several lawmakers questioned the legality of exceeding the limit by so much… .

To many of the soldiers whose retirements and departures are on ice, however, stop-loss is an inconvenience, a hardship and, in some cases, a personal disaster. Some are resigned to fulfilling what they consider their patriotic duty. Others are livid, insisting they have fallen victim to a policy that amounts to an unannounced, unheralded draft.

Significance: 40,000 troops have been involuntarily committed to extended tours of duty. The Department of Defense has in essence already begun a “draft” that has caused the number of soldiers to exceed a limit authorized by Congress—and still more, many more, will be needed.

Just a good article.

DAVID,

The term is outsource not ‘deport’, oouutsource. And this might have been one of those unfortunate redneck things where you have some guy who just wanted to pick a fight. Drunks do weird things.

IMHO

Oh, so there are “no plans” to re-instate the draft? No, there are just EXERCISES and $28 million extra to get the whole Selective Service ready and open for business by June 15, 2005!!

Read this official budget carefully and you will see that Bush is gearing up the draft—there is no longer any doubt about it. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005, that the system is ready for activation within 75 days. So on June 15, 2005, expect the announcement that the first draft lottery since Vietnam will be held for 20 year-olds.

Here is where the DU rubber hits the road, my friends. This is a DU EXCLUSIVE as far as I know, so please read this one carefully and let me know what we are going to do about it. To put this all into context, the SSS has lain basically dormant for decades and now in the 2004 budget, Bush has added $28 million to get the whole thing ready to fly in 2005. The 4 performance goals below basically make the system ready for activation.

http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

This FY 2004 APP identifies the activities and strategies that will take place during the
fiscal year to achieve Agency goals and objectives. It also identifies relevant performance
measurement target goals to be achieved. The performance goals for FY 2004 are:

1. Develop an Area Office Prototype Exercise that will test the Health
Care Personnel Delivery System (HCPDS) work flows and support
programs.

2. Redefine Agency infrastructure based on a Quinquennial Workload
Study.

3. Prepare and conduct an Area Office Prototype Exercise which tests
the activation process from SSS Lottery input to the issuance of the
first Armed Forces Examination Orders.

4. Ensure 90% of people tested are capable of implementing activation
procedures.

5. Ensure that 95% of the predefined readiness objectives are attained
and validated during an Area Office Prototype Exercise.

6. Train 90% of assigned State Directors (SDs) and Reserve Force
Officers (RFOs) on HCPDS and Timed-Phased Response (TPR)
functions and responsibilities.

7. Attain a 92% or greater compliance rate for men 18 through 25 years
old.

8. Attain and appoint Registrars in 85% of the Nation’s high schools.

9. Obtain 75% of all registrations electronically.

10. Maintain an average systems change request implementation time of
39 days.

11. Maintain a functional proponent and customer satisfaction level of
87%.

12. Have a telephone call completion rate of 93% or higher.

13. Answer correspondence in less than 10 days.

14. Train 90% of assigned SDs and RFOs on Alternative Service plans
and procedures.

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT

An annual report providing the results of the implementation of these performance
measures will be submitted by March 31, 2005. This report will address attained versus
planned levels of performance, explain unattained target levels, and identify where and
how strategies, performance goals, and performance indicators should be changed to
ensure that the SSS reaches its strategic and annual goals and objectives.

VOTE FOR BUSH IN 2004, BE DRAFTED IN 2005!!

Don’t know how valid but the sources backs up its claims.

US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005
by Adam Stutz • Wednesday January 28, 2004 at 09:50 AM

The current agenda of the US federal government is to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on “terrorism.” Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 — conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election!

Reinstatement of the draft

Dear Friends and Family,

I urge you to read the article below on the current agenda of the federal government to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on “terrorism.”

Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 — conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election! But the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so our action is needed immediately. Details and links follow.

If voters who currently support U.S. aggression abroad were confronted with the possibility that their own children or grandchildren might not have a say about whether to fight, many of these same voters might have a change of mind. (Not that it should make a difference, but this plan would among other things eliminate higher education as a shelter and would not exclude women — and Canada is no longer an option.)

Please send this on to all the parents and teachers you know, and all the aunts and uncles, grandparents, godparents…. And let your children know — it’s their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change! Please also write to your representatives to ask them why they aren’t telling their constituents about these bills — and write to newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they’re not covering this important story.

The Draft*

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. SSS must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the SSS Annual Performance Plan - Fiscal Year 2004.

The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld’s prediction of a “long, hard slog” in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on “terrorism”] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163 forward this year, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, “To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18—26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.” These active bills currently sit in the Committee on Armed Services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era remember. College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a “Smart Border Declaration,” which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Manley, and US Homeland Security Director, Gov. Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a “pre-clearance agreement” of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their cur-rent semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

*This article by Adam Stutz is from the “What’s Hot Off the Press” column of the newsletter of Project Censored, a media research group at Sonoma State University that tracks the news published in independent journals and newsletters. From these, Project Censored compiles an annual list (more than 20 years running) of 25 news stories of social significance that have been overlooked, under-reported, or self-censored by the country’s major national news media. The mission of Project Censored is “to educate people about the role of independent journalism in a democratic society and to tell The News That Didn’t Make the News and why.”

“What’s Hot Off the Press” includes student synopses of articles currently being investigated for inclusion in the next Project Censored report. For more info and/or to receive Project Censored’s newsletter, go to http://www.projectcensored.org, or email [censored]@sonoma.edu

Noel, most likely one of the Kerry kids somehow.

Best bet submit what you have to WWW.BUZZFLASH.COM if it’s good as a source.

If you have something they will take it from there and it will get around QUICK.

Trust me WWW.BUZZFLASH.com will get the info out.

Also check out these as possible distributors:

WWW.democrats.com
WWW.IMC.com (AKA Indy media)
www.takebackthemedia.com
www.onlinejournal.com

Also Mother Jones, Village voice and the like they are always looking for stories-obviously. Not as quick though.

Each page has links go e-mail crazy.

Also E-mail Lou Dobbs at CNN he might bite even in leiu of CBS’ debackle.

Oh and try “www.David Cogswell.com” and e-mail him and get some advice on how to further get this info out there. He knows his shite.

Just e-mail everything everywhere. And don’t put all your eggs in one basket such as above unless you have a page that allows you an article. Press “send” til the keys come off the board, it will eventually see daylight.

Noel,

Are you a frequent poster to the Democratic Underground?

Here is where the DU rubber hits the road, my friends. This is a DU EXCLUSIVE as far as I know, so please read this one carefully and let me know what we are going to do about it. To put this all into context, the SSS has lain basically dormant for decades and now in the 2004 budget, Bush has added $28 million to get the whole thing ready to fly in 2005. The 4 performance goals below basically make the system ready for activation.

You run with that Noel. You’re right the very existance of a Selective Service agency during a Bush Adminstration is proof positive that there will be a draft.

Whacko Leftie, it was a corn sheller not a religion.

Noel,

Look at the frontpage of the selective service site. Obviously they’ve been getting some nervous inquiries from worried mom’s of seventeen year olds scared by Democratic scare tactics to have had to post this on the front page as a notice.

Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces — either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new. Further, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq. Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25. http://www.sss.gov/

ERIC,

The government never misleads the public, say it with meeee, the govvvernmennnt nevvvver miiissssleeads the puuuublic. Now click your heels three times and there will be weapons of mass destruction.

Corn sheller, religion, eh who cares I love the choir.

Who opened the flood gates from the Democratic Underground in here?

When you cut to the core of this post, it is simple-minded propaganda. If a soldier got beat up, it must be the fault of those bad liberals. Liberals bad. Conservatives good. President wise and good. Hail Caesar!

When you cut to the core of this post, it is simple-minded propaganda: If a soldier got beat up, then it must be the fault of those evil liberal Kerry supporters. Liberals bad. Conservatives good. President wise and good. Hail Caesar!

Eric,
There are three different sources. I looked at it and it in bush’s words “good sound intelligence.” I don’t know if it will happen for FACT but I can assure two things. 1. The Bush Administration are a bunch of warmongering neoconservatives. The people leaving the military is at an astonishing rate compared to where it was. There are quite a few Navy/Marine soldiers who do not want to serve under a Commander-in-Chief as reckless as the Bush Administration. 2. Why wouldn’t they put out the draft again. a) bush does not care for human life as it is obvious and b) why out of 1,039 people who have died in Iraq has bush not been to one funeral of a veteran WHO GAVE HIS LIFE TO THIS COUNTRY. According to several sources, that is a fact, bush has not been to one funeral. Can you, Eric, honestly tell me with conviction that bush truly cares. If he did in my view, he would not have rushed into this war as unplanned and as reckless as he has. I urge you to watch UNCOVERED: THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOU THE IRAQ WAR. Download it or buy it but take into account the outright lies, half truths, and the monumental exaggerations of the Iraq War. Plain and simple, America’s middle class will get poorer while Bush, Cheney, and all his cronies will get filthy rich. The war has always been about oil, Halliburton. They have more people representing Halliburton in Iraq than the military. I am a moderate but I will tell you what. Do you wonder why people are pissed off now? Because for the most part the extremeists conservatives are turning a blind eye to the true motives of Iraq and we are going to be there for another 4 maybe even 10 years in this country. Bush should resign effective immediately. As far as the draft is concerned, the evidence I presented above from three sources is compelling and more so than that, I know that Bush could give two shits whether a warrior dies or not in Iraq. Me personally, not only should he not run the country, not only is he a heartless puppet of Dick Cheney, but more so than anything else; he should be in a cell next to Sadaam Hussein. Bush is the lesser of two evils, but in my eyes both guys are diabolical, pathological liars, maybe not Bush for being a pathological liar but even more possible with an 89 IQ BRAINWASHED. A right wing puppet should not run the country. However Eric, thank you for challenging my sources but if my case and your case were to be in a court of law, you would lose your case so come up with a better counter than what you have presented.

One more thing Eric, I take all sources if they have EVIDENCE. So no I am not a poster for Democratic Underground, as I myself questioned the partisan source although they had compelling evidence. I AM NOT BIASED TOWARDS DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND AS I DIDN’T EVEN KNOW THEY EXISTED PRIOR TO COMING ACROSS THIS ARTICLE. IN ADDITION, OUT OF MY THREE SOURCES, TWO ARE NOT FROM DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

I’m having trouble following this thread.

Noel, which presidents have EVER attended military funerals before a war was over? Are you even interested? Throwing around insults about 89 IQs and brainwashing may be personally satisfying to you, but let’s not do it while also invoking standards of “reason” and “evidence.”

Roosevelt never attended a SINGLE funeral during World War II. I guess he just didn’t care. Is that what they’re saying over at Democratic Underground?

Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Johnson. How many military funerals did they attend while they were president if you add them all together?

The answer is (drumroll): Zero.

The reason is that if a president agrees to attend one funeral, he’ll have to attend them all or insult those he doesn’t attend. Lincoln would have to attend couple hundred funerals a day. Roosevelt would STILL be attending funerals. So there goes that talking point—poof. Next, please.

The soldier who was beat up is the tip of the iceberg. I live in NY and San Francisco, and the level of intimidation and fanaticism directed against conservatives in either of these places goes beyond anything even dreamt of during the McCarthy era.

Displaying a Bush bumper sticker or sign, would give you a 100% chance of being vandalized or physically asaulted. We conservatives keep below the radar out of practical neccesity. I’ve even been forced to mouth anti-Bush sentiments at certain moments just to avoid what I knew would otherwise turn into a serious confrontation.

At some point, it’s just useless to try reasoning people out of positions they were never reasoned into to begin with. But the thugs and fanatics won’t be allowed into the voting booths with us, and that will be our moment. When conscience and reason trumps propaganda and intimidation.

Martin,
Okay I can accept that now because I couldn’t find the information for a president attending funerals although I hate it because it is out of a matter of RESPECT. As far as 89 IQ’s go, very true, it may be an insult but a fact speaks for fact. For ass being the word assume, I don’t even go on Democratic Undergrounds site so try again loser. It was a source for the draft in 2005 and 2 other sites back it up so what is it going to be Martin? Brainwashed Bush. The evidence seems to indicate he is either brainwashed or a pathological liar. You pointed out brainwash but you didn’t point out pathological liar. Why Martin? Is it because it is a position that you can’t defend George Bush on when he had his desperate attempt speech at the General Assembly? Do you wonder why the whole world hates the Bush Administration including the United Kingdom because George Bush is a liar and he is a horrible president. I guess you have to much pride to admit that in a time of war. Bush is again I will repeat this EITHER BRAINWASHED OR A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR MARTIN. As far as Democratic Underground, again for morons who can’t get facts through there skulls, I used that site that came up on my search engine for the draft in 2005 if Bush is re-elected. I have used two other sites as well so Martin it is not plagirism as they say but research. If Bush does win (with after the General Assembly debacle I highly doubt as Kerry’s aggressive prosecuting alter ego with hurt Bush quite a bit in the debates) there will be a draft in 2005 based upon the evidence. What are going to say then Martin. I already know your partisian answer to that. First, you won’t EVER acknowledge the source as one of them being Democratic Underground and two YOU WILL DEFEND HIM so don’t give me your one sided crap. I hope that clears your nasal about your ASSumptions and your accusations. I already know your positions before you can even think about it because you and Eric are so damn predictable. For some reason, I find it way easier to defend Kerry on any position than defending Bush. Why because Bush can’t be defended because actions over the past four years speak louder than words.

I will apoligize to the Watchblog Manager as I hope he/she understands that I am being attacked unfairly, I stated my research, and Martin and Eric can’t back it up because like I said before. When it does happen if Bush is re-elected, they will never admit the Democratic Underground information as truth and more so than that; they will defend George Bush on a position that right now they clearly see as irrational and wrong. Martin and Eric will become the Watchblog Flip-Floppers.

Funny Martin,
Displaying a Bush bumper sticker or sign, would give you a 100% chance of being vandalized or physically asaulted.

That is funny that you say that. Are you indicating that Bush supporters are the ones assualted, intimidated, ect. I am a Kerry supporter in Bushville so yes I have been spit on, flipped off, ganged up on, refused services at restaurants, and refused cigarettes at a gas station. Your argument holds no ground as both sides have fanatics.

Plus Martin you are a coward.
NEVER LET SOMEONE FORCE YOU TO SCREAM THEIR POINTS OF VIEWS WHEN OTHERWISE YOU HOLD DIFFERENTLY.
I actually could respect you if you told them to screw off and you will go for Bush like I did when 5 marines ganged up on me when I was walking home in the middle of the night with a Kerry shirt on. SO, I won’t be punked out by a bunch of close minded losers. WE WILL NOT FALTER AND WE WILL NOT FAIL. JOHN KERRY AND HIS SUPPORTERS 2004. It may sound insensitive but stand your ground Martin. If you talk the talk (like Bush) you better walk the walk.

Your Quote: I’ve even been forced to mouth anti-Bush sentiments at certain moments just to avoid what I knew would otherwise turn into a serious confrontation.

Peace, Noel. Saying you visit the Democratic Underground is not really an attack, is it? I visit it myself frequently, which is why it seems to me you’re copying and pasting from there (your words match almost letter to letter posts I’m seeing there tonight). But you really don’t have to apologize for it, if it’s true (or even it its not) since the substance of argumments is more important than your source, right? It shouldn’t be such a big deal or an occasion for flaming.

But your last posts have specifically called some of us “morons” “losers” and “cowards,” which we have certainly not called you.

Okay Martin,
This is not a confession but I thought it was obvious I did the copy and paste. I wanted to get as much information out as possible. Plus, I hate research papers. I thought it was obvious and it was. I just put the sources up there. As far as morons, cowards, and losers I will apoligize as I did take it to far and I am a jerk about this election. I apoligize and understand your predictament and circumstances you were involved in. Hey, it happens to me as well but I have more guts than brains a lot of times (I guess Bush and I do have a lot in common). I will too apoligize for my misinterpretation as I thought it was an unnessicary attack about my source on a very serious and even to a certain extent a hidden issue that the public has the right to know about in this election. Kerry is not playing the fear rhetoric I don’t believe because it holds ground. As far as you and me go, I apoligize again but hey its all for the love and hypocrisy of politics. I understand your views but being a democrat we can’t let our guard down because if we do, the republicans will run all over us. Its a political thing and nothing personal, just a cheapshot. No offense.

Here is the link to the story about the woman fired for a Kerry bumper sticker, Kerry Hires Ala. Woman Fired for Sticker

I live in constant fear of being beaten up by Amy
Goodman and Alan Combes.

The Republicans need to get over their schizophrenia on war protesters.

On the one hand they try to paint the anti-Vietnam war movement as anti-Republican, but on the other hand they never tire of pointing out that Vietnam was a Democrat (Johnson’s) war.

So either the anti-war movement has nothing to do with political parties, or you Republicans are big supporters of Democratic wars.

Either way, this is just a drunken brawl that Eric is blowing way out of proportion.

kctim:

Merriam Webster defines bigot as: : “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices,” which would certainly apply to someone who ascribes negative thoughts and feelings to everyone who belongs to a particular political belief.

I think you’re also wrong in assuming that liberals would have supported the Iraq war if Gore had been elected president. First of all, we most likely would not BE AT WAR WITH IRAQ. Besides that, liberals don’t tend to opt for war first, particularly when it’s a pre-emptive one with little evidence to support it.

But nevertheless I’m glad you oppose the war from the coservative side.

…According to a Columbus police report, six witnesses who didn’t know Barton said the person who beat him up was screaming profanities and making crude remarks about U.S. soldiers, Burton reported.

…and this is all the story says about the attacker. How on earth do we know that this guy was brainwashed by the liberal media? he could have been a libertarian that wants to privatize the miltary, or a guy who lost his girlfriend to a soldier, or a gay former lover who was left behind when the guy was called up. Wouldn’t a liberal just shout “baby-killer! baby-killer!” from safely behind a protest sign, or engage the guy in a sensitive dialog about drilling the AWR?

Tieing this incident with legitimate opposition to Bush’s expensive and ineffective wars seems to be not much more than free-association.

David:

I did not see in the link you posted a reason for the woman being fired. I’d think it patently illegal to fire someone simply for having a bumper sticker on their car. The company must have some other reason, even if its a made up one, for the firing.

Only if the sticker in some way impaired her from doing her job, should it be an issue. And I cant think of much reason how it could impair her job duties. The only thing I can see is if the company had a policy against political stickers of any kind, and this woman didnt follow policy.

In any regard, it seems an awfully silly reason for firing someone. And it seems to me to be a limitation on her rights.

This whiny, wimpy, “mean old liberal” rant just reminds me of how divisive and deceptive and removed from truth the republican right wingers have become.

Eric uses known misquotes taken out of context and attributes them to Theresa Heinz. Eric isn’t that dumb, he just “Hannatizes” the truth.

They seem to have developed the “wife-beaters” syndrome of blaming the victims for their own vitriol.

It doesn’t surprise me. It is usually the cheating spouse who accuses the other of infidelity due to the transference of their own guilt.

Thanks, Eric, for promoting more victimization psycho babble for the poor little rich corporate white male class in America.

All I can say about the above posts is:

What are we letting our ‘leaders’ do to us??

> What are we letting our ‘leaders’ do to us??

Indeed. We are being torn apart by conflicting opinions about the invasion of Iraq. Many Americans think it was a huge mistake to begin with, and many other Americans deeply resent those who think that way.

We ought not go to war when such huge numbers of Americans (more than a third, even before the war started, and close to half today) are unwilling to support it. That, by the way, is part of the long-forgotten Powell Doctrine, which says that a war should have strong support from a well-informed American people.

-Cf

Chris:

I disagree with your principle in the last post. Our government is a representative democracy, meaning that we elect people whom we trust (these days we use the word trust lightly on all counts) to enact legislation, policy and law. These are not based on popular vote, as you seemed to want.

That 1/3 or even 1/2 of the people are for or against something doesnt mean we should or shouldnt do it. Think back to the beginning of the civil rights movement, or the women’s right to vote issue. If we took your position, neither issue would have been acted upon, to the detriment of our country.

Numbers of people on various sides of issues is important in an instructive way, in that it gives our leaders an idea of what the people think. But its nothing more than that.

I suspect you agree with my position on this, even as you disagree with the outcome of having gone to war.

Anger, Rage, Imbalance- The Dark Side of the Force are they…

No, seriously, What reason can you offer me beside a handful of isolated incidents to say this represents the Democrat’s view. Just because we don’t have an over the top set of recruitment commercials accompanied by a choir doesn’t mean we don’t support our troops.

In the end, moral support is the lesser kind of support Bush can give his soldiers. He could have given them the support of the world, real allies that could contribute more than token support to the mission. He could have asked congress for the money from the start to armor our military’s vehicles troops. He could have anticipated, on the advice of countless military strategists that oil proceeds were not goint to pay for reconstruction.

He could have thought twice before offering a dare to the insurgents to attack us.

Hell, he could come up with a plan for taking back the territory that the insurgents have gained. He could, but he’s not going to, because he feels he’s right, and he doesn’t need to stand to account to anyone. Besides, he thinks he’s got divine guidance, so why does he need to listen to anybody else?

Were I there, I would have fought with that man’s attackers. I do not hate the soldier, I do not even hate the leaders. But I find the leaders are unworthy of their position. What’s worse, they have taken the reprehensible step of conflating support for them with support for the troops. I will not have the litmus test of my character be the support of policies that clear evidence has shown to be flawed beyond repair.

If you want to win this campaign on propaganda, go ahead and try. But winning a campaign like this with a candidate like Bush, may just end up a pyhrric victory, should it occur.

You say we’re using fear tactics. We say you are. Truth is, both our campaign are capitilizing on the anxieties of Americans. The question is, which candidate do the American people have legitimate cause to fear? Bush is bashing Kerry for his more diplomatic sensibilities, trying to get people to fear a potential weakness of character more than any demonstrable one.

But Kerry has an advantage there- bad things have truly happened in Iraq. Bush must play on people’s imaginations to inspire fear. Kerry need only refresh people’s memories about what Bush has done. This campaign is about the past. The past four years.

hey joe:

you stated that we elect politicians that we trust….

i have to disagree with you there….

politician = dishonest

i think most americans, and though i have no fact on this, just ask around….most americans vote for who they feel will screw up their lives LESS.

it has nothing to do with a persons honesty or good nature…WE WANT OUR POLITICIANS TO BE GREAT LIARS….

in fact, if they are too honest, say like howard dean….they tend to look down on them, hell….the democrats were against dean….mostly because he was too honest…and a fiscal conservative..which they hated.

anywho…people vote for the lesser of two evils…not much more.

It’s sad. Depressing really, to hear Kerry insult the Iraqi Prime Minister in order to, in his mind, win an election.

Exactly what kind of coalition building is he embarking on?

The pessimism is deafening. In order for Kerry to win, the economy has to be worse than the great depression, Bush has to have lost more jobs since any President since Hoover, Iraq has to be spinning out of control, Afghanistan has to be descending into chaos. What kind of campaign is he running?

Not to mention that all of the above is not true, but kudos to the democrats for trying.

When Kerry takes office after his campaign, why would any nation want to send their troops to a war Kerry is saying is lost already?

Kerry’s campaign sounds as though it has a new Information Minister.

I agree with Rob wholeheartedly. The fact of the matter is people work too much to pay as much attention because politics requires dedication and that is probably 20% of the voters. I remember when the hot shot lawyer, Geoffrey Fieger, ran for Governor in Michigan. He was a very honest person in terms of how he would turn Michigan around and he truly cared. He won the Democratic Nomination but got killed 2:3 when he ran. Let’s face it everyone. The citizens of the United States are scared of honest politicians.

Too honest?

When you say put these two statements together it amounts to a redefinition of the word honest.

People are scared of Howard Dean.
People are scared of honest politicians.
Therefore Howard Dean is an honest politician.

By that reasoning I could also say—

People are scared of Pat Robertson.
People are scared of honest politicians.
Therefore Pat Robertson is an honest politician?

The Bush Administration is valuing rhetoric over forthright communication. It’s blaming the media for simply passing on the facts, saying they’re being selective. Well, the Bush administration has a remedy for that, if the facts are on their side: present America with a comprehensive picture of progress. Even during WWII when media were censored and optimism appraisal the rule, people were given at least some of the hard facts. The reality of war was acknowledged, not sugar-coated.

Bush’s approach here has been to sugarcoat the war so much the Iraqis have gone diabetic from it. Everything’s part of the progress, even when the situation degenerates, and the body counts rise. Although this is a valid point of view in war, that sometimes the trials are great before victory, it nonetheless is not an excuse people will accept forever.

At some point, Bush must present the American people with reason to believe progress is going forward, something more tangible than his promises or his rhetoric alone can provide. The people at home in WWII could count on us to take ground and keep it. The Folks at home now have to listen to their commander and Chief proclaim progress with no real progress noted besides that in Najaf, and setbacks occuring elsewhere.

You seem to want to balance the picture by exclusion of the bloody facts on the ground, the dead and the wounded, but that strategy presents problems of it’s own.

In composition, whether it’s sculpting, drawing, or photography, the positive shape of things in frames, what objects take up, is not all that must be considered. The empty space, too, plays an important part of the look of things.

Stories also have composition issues of this kind, though the nature of them relates to what must be said, and what can be left unsaid. There’s a lot of empty space in the Bush story. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing in an imperfect world, but only certain arrangements of the evidence allow things to be left unsaid, or unproven.

The Negative space concerning Iraq policy is the natural uncertainty of war. But uncertainty is a double edged sword when used as a premise for an argument. It limits what has to be proved about one’s case, but it also limits what one can prove in the other direction. If your intent is to stall inquiry, that’s of no concern. But if your intent is to inspire confidence in the wisdom of a course of action, it can be problematic, because such confidence, over the long term, depends on the positive shape of the evidence. Only conspiracy theories thrive on uncertainty, and they don’t inspire confidence in anyone but true believers.

The Bush Administration has rested its chances on what is essentially a conspiracy theory: that the media is covering up his successes, failing to cover all the progress, endangering it by instilling doubt in the American people.

Problem is, losing cities, getting attacked sixty times a day, losing over a thousand soldiers and having over seven thousand get wounded in action are alarming facts in either context. The question is, what coherent big picture has Bush provided to us? He gives us vague statements with little of the texture of evidence and fact that would validate his view.

If Bush had a solid story, he wouldn’t have such a need to spin everybody elses.

Stephen:

“Were I there, I would have fought with that man’s attackers.”

I’m not sure if I understand your statement, so I’d appreciate some clarification. Are you saying that were you an Anmerican in Iraq, that you would fight with those fighting against the United States? Or are you saying that if you were
an Iraqi, you would fight against the US?

Not to sound insulting but have you considered this guy might have set it up? You said he lost comrades and was wounded. He was scheduled to go back? How likely would it be that he “arranged” an incident to keep him in America? Combat Stress can do a lot of things to a guy mentally.

A second theory would be that the attacker thought he was a “peacenik”. An Iraqi Freedom T-shirt could be interpreted as criticism of the US Occupation of Iraq. The Soldier could have been thought of as an anti-war activist.

Aldous.

Well, Joe, I’m speaking of the criminal assault that was perpetrated on the soldier at the concert mentioned in the article. But while I’m at it, I might as well bite on the questions. Keep in mind, though, these are all hypotheticals, including the next item.

First, on the insurgency, I don’t know. Maybe if I were an Iraqi, I’d be one of those cautioning for more peaceful dealings with the occupiers. But that’s me projecting attitudes born of my experience as an American citizen. I’d like to flatter myself by thinking that as an Iraqi, I’d find the violence to be overwhelming and negative. But I also know that when I feel strongly enough, I can be a pretty vengeful bastard.

As a soldier for our side, the obvious answer would be that I’d likely defend my brother to the death. I think it would be the right answer for me as well. Would I be brave? I don’t know. I only know how I fight from first person shooter games. There I can be confident of instant return to health under certain circumstances, and an ability to return from death under all circumstance. There I have a talent for making the other side die for their country, but also a tendency to trudge through damage that in real life would likely drop me.

I’d like to think I’d be a bold hard-edged warrior. I’d also like to think, though that I would be honorable in my fight, that I wouldn’t inflict harm on the Iraqi citizens without necessity or good cause.

But even there, I am no sure of whether I could live with my reactions. Difficult choices pervade combat, especially when the war has been screwed up by the politicians and the policy makers. That’s the crappy truth of it- if the folks above you don’t make moral decision, it can affect your ability to make moral decisions yourself, as you are put into situations where your mission is to do the very thing that is hateful to your conscience.

I agree Stephen. Just like John Kerry pointed out in 1971.

Stephen,

What distresses me the most about the democratic spin on Iraq is that as soon as Kerry becomes President democrats will do one of two things. Either they will switch gears into reverse and after a policy pronouncement and orders from President Kerry, every terrorist killed in Iraq will be hailed as victory and the end of the quagmire. Or they will pressure him to pull out US troops whether or not he can get any new allies to send troops. Probably, it will be the first followed by the second.

Honestly, I think his plan is entirely driven by politics and not reality. I don’t understand what Kerry is planning to do. If Iraq is such an unmitigated mess and we need to get our soldiers out of there, how exactly will he defeat these insurgents? If Kerry were serious he would be calling for sending more troops to defeat them, not less. If I’m not mistaken that was your position a while back.

The point is, Eric, that Bush has created a quagmire from the beginning and is continuing to make things worse.

It was a poor decision to invade without alliance backing. It was a poor decision to ignore warnings about security after dethroning Sadam.

It was a poor decision to abuse prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

It was a poor decision lock up a bunch of non-combatants.

It was a poor decision to attack Fallujah. It was a poor decision to retreat from Fallujah.

It was a poor decison to disband the Iraqi military.

It was a poor decision to not increase troop strength when we could have stemmed the beginnings of the insurgency.

It was a poor decision to offer no compete contracts.

It was a poor decision to exclude potential allies from contracts.

These evaluations are coming from his own military and staff that have actually been in Iraq.

All that Kerry needs to offer is to stop the politically inept decisions coming from Washington and he will be miles ahead of Bush on policy.

I would remind you Eric, that Bush has already declared Victory and is now using Robert Novack to float the cut and run policy. What is Bush’s grand plan? Oops, he hasn’t got one has he? Of course he’s only the leader of the free world why should it be his job to actually announce a plan?

Maybe it’s because they love freedom and the terrorists hate freedom. Sounds like plan to me.

The United States cannot leave Iraq. Too many important countries around it. Too much Oil to lose control of. It is almost a certainty that Israel will launch airstrikes if a fundamentalist government takes over. Turkey will invade if the Kurds secceed. Iran will want the Shia Religious Sites. Saudi Arabia will probably collapse. So on.

What a brave new world we live in.

Aldous.

I think what Kerry is planning is essentially a backdoor end to the backdoor draft. He has said that he will add forty thousand troops to our armies, though not in Iraq. However, that means that forty-thousand troops in positions around the world would be freed up to come in and replace the National Guardsman who have lives back home that were disrupted by Bush’s backdoor draft. A professional army as opposed to a semi-professional. Kerry will not quibble as to what needs to be done, will not paint rosy pictures as to what needs to be done. He will be frank and honest with us, and with the rest of the world. And if the evidence before him indicates the need for a larger presence in Iraq, I believe he will act accordingly.

I see in too many posts that the “liberals” are attacking the “conservatives”. That one poster is afraid to proclaim himself a conservative.
I blame the neocon talk show hosts. Limbaugh, Hannity, Hewitt, and Medved have done more to polarize the the folks than Bush or Kerry.
BTW I looked up the word liberal in Merriam Webster, nowhere is there any definition that could be construed as an insult.
NOTOTH,
I also was around and was old enough to remember Vietnam. What I don’t remember were hippies pulling rednecks out of cars and giving them haircuts. I was threatened with that several times and decided to remove myself from those circumstances.
As a peace marcher I was peacefull! I don’t think that my memory is selective, I truely don’t remember violence started by peace marchers.
I do however, remember millions of protesters around the world before we went into Iraq. I also remember Bush’s remarks about them.