Rant: Evil Doer's Strike Again.

[Will]

Ok, most of the rest of the points are highly inflamatory, and don't deal with the issues much, if at all. So I'll go ahead and ignore the rest of it.

And AT, I hold both the Republican and Democratic parties in utter contempt. It's just I usually have less of a problem with Democrats than I do with Republicans, since the idealogical community that I despise the most in the US (conservative Evangelical Christians, eg. those who love their faith so much they want everyone else to have that faith too... or else) tends to overwhelmingly go Republican, and they determine some of their more distasteful (in my view) policies. Most of the Republicans I know who don't put the "neo-conservative" labels on themselves would fit far better in the Libertarian Party, since the Republican leadership has unfortunately been taken over by the so-called neo-conservative elements.

Pretty much my view on the entire military aspect of the candidates is that Kerry has some experience commanding a very small number of soldiers (five at a time, I believe), and none commanding any significant number. Bush has the three and a half years he got as President, and I think he botched most of it.

Afghanistan was pretty much a necessity any way you look at it, he would have been crucified if there wasn't swift action there. Then I think there are two ways to look at Iraq: either it was chosen over other viable targets (such as N. Korea) because there were already other factors aiding in the war attempt (trouble with UN sanctions) as well as it's location close to other Middle-eastern states where it was suspected terrorists were harbored; or, it was chosen because it was a slightly easier target (again because of UN sanctions and the demolishment of the Iraqi military in Gulf War I), control over oil (auto-magically gain the support of probably 25% of the country there), personal grudge over the assasination plot against Daddy, or any of the other conspiracy theories that have floated around. While the conspiracy theory points ARE possible, the first option would have to be the primary reason for any sane person.

So, in my view, immediately after invading Afghanistan, the talk of invading Iraq that came up was Bush mistake #1. Everything before that was pretty much auto-pilot, it would have happened no matter who was President (my opinion, but I don't see how anyone could think differently). The military should have focused on cleaning out Afghanistan and ensuring a stable new government, then moved on to the next target.

Bush mistake #2 was not listening to his military advisors, who knew what they were doing, and sending fewer troops than recommended into Iraq. While the neutralization of Iraq was still swift, it could have gone smoother, and a larger force would have been able to prevent the next mistake...

With Bush mistake #3 being again not listening to his military advisors, and keeping an insufficient police force in Iraq after the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco (I can't see how anyone would think that Bush's little stunt of showing up on the carrier was a smart move, especially considering that it was premature). There were a lot of analogies used for the search for weapons about how Iraq was about the size of California, making searching the entire country difficult. Well, to borrow from that, imagine going into California, and removing all the local police, the CHP, the National Guard, etc., in the state, and replacing them with a vastly smaller force of "police troops", who patrolled mostly in the major cities and the routes between them. What would happen to California then? Well, very quickly, gangs would gain control of large parts of the cities, and small Groups of bandits would have free reign over the rural areas. Which is exactly what is happening in Iraq.

So, Bush has consistently overestimated the abilities of his armies, and consistently underestimated the abilities of his opponents, on his opponents' home ground. With that record, you will forgive me if I do not want to give him a chance to learn from his mistakes, I'll take chances with someone else.

[CNCRaymond]

I know that your post was not directed at me Will, but I would still like to respond to it if you don’t mind. (If you do mind, well then I apologize now for I am going to respond to it.)

I respect your point of view, and although I do agree with much of what you have to say, I do have some questions for you. I would like to know if you are a specialist on the military, their tactics and capabilities? Are you a political specialist and or annalist? Have you ever been in the white house, or have ever sat in attendance during any of the meetings between Bush and his military advisors? Are you privy to special information that the rest of us are not, or are all your points just your opinion and nothing more?

You see, unless you are in the loop, your out of it. And those out of the look love to speculate and arm chair quarterback the choices of those who are in the loop.

You speak of mistakes that Bush has made. Do you have any written proof from any legitimate source that can cohobate your statements? Are you privy to special information that the rest of us are not? Do you have confirmation that Bush has made mistakes from solid military sources that can be quoted and or verified? Or are you more likely or not basing your statements on your own best assumption of the facts at hand?

Facts at hand that are often not complete, lack vital information, and are most likely from subjective sources. Subjective sources being not directly from the source to which they are reportedly reporting on. More often than not they are little more than hearsay and rumor until cohobated. I see no cohabitation of your contention that Bush has made mistakes, therefore I can only conclude that these mistakes you speak of are little more than your opinion of Bush’s performance. However since you are most likely not a military tactical specialist, and are probably not a political annalist, and have no connection to the leaders of our armed forces, I can only surmise that your opinions that the President has made mistakes lack credibility and are little more than your personal beliefs based not on fact, but on personal observations which lack professional credibility. Welcome to the club.

As for the religious aspects of the Republican Party, I don't know, as I have never really paid much attention to them. All I do know is that they have been under attack lately by people who want the words “In God We Trust,” removed from our currency, and the words “Under God” censored from the Pledge of Allegiance. I have read that many people, namely lesbian woman’s Groups and teenage girls, oppose them because they have a strong stance against abortion. I have no facts to back this up, therefore I will not comment on it. I challenge you to do the same, and produce facts to back up your comments.

My “observations” of the Democratic party is that they fear personal responsibility and have historically voted to limit personal freedoms, write laws to protect us from our freedom of choice, and support the corrupt ambulance chasing actions of trial lawyers and their frivolous lawsuits.

Hell look at what they are doing over the Swift Vote adds right now. The Democrats, specifically Kerry's campaign, have dumped over sixty three million dollars worth of negative adds into the president’s lap, and he watered them without fuss. Now here comes the Swift Vote with there two hundred and fifty thousands dollars worth of ads and Mr. Kerry and his Democrat supporters are crying foul. I really just want to yell, "OH GIVE ME A BREAK MR. KERRY AND SUCK IT UP!"

You see the Kerry people love to dish it out, but can't stand to get it back. Do the math, sixty three million dollars to two hundred and fifty thousand. And now they want a court order to stop these vets right to voice their views. What is Kerry afraid of? Is he afraid that the truth will come out, and that truth will be that he manufactured situations and doctored his reports in order to get medals? I think that that is where this controversy is heading and he and his supporters know this so they want to use the courts, and make law, to prevent those who know the truth from ever telling any one of it. That is what the Democrats do. They whine and boo hoo like spoiled rotten children whenever things don't go their way. They lie, they sue, and they do whatever they can to make the light of truth to go away. Again, this is just based upon my personal observations that just so happen to be shared by a great deal of Americans.

Look at what Gore did in 2000; He sued over the results of the election. Fast-forward to day, and you see Kerry and his camp suing to stop adds that put him and his candidacy for the presidency in jeopardy.

As to the spin doctoring that these men, the Swift Vets, are making things up, well I ask you, why would they? What do they possibly hope to gain? Nothing, they are just American veterans who happened to have served with Kerry and they are telling us that he is not the right man for the job. And if history has ever taught us anything, its to listen to our vets.

The majority of our military and are veterans, as well as their families, support Bush. This tells me two things, one he has their confidence, and Kerry does not, and two, they would rather have a man of proven character in office over that of a man who's character is in question.

[Mephisto]

CNCRaymond said:
As to the spin doctoring that these men, the Swift Vets, are making things up, well I ask you, why would they? What do they possibly hope to gain? Nothing, they are just American veterans who happened to have served with Kerry and they are telling us that he is not the right man for the job.

Why would they? Maybe because they don't like Kerry? There are Veterans (also Swift) as far as I know that state the direct opposite of what the Swift Veterans tell you. Why would they make things up? Because they like Kerry and not Bush? Who is right I don't know but it is IMHO a bit far-fetched to say that either of the Vets are objective in their opinion, not subjective.

And if history has ever taught us anything, its to listen to our vets.

I'm no Amercian so can you give me an example where the Vets said something that was not done and that got awfully wrong? Anyway, just being someone who has been in a war doesn't make a person more reliable or wiser then other persons IMHO. I would trust my mother any day with her opinion but she surely isn't a veteran. I have seen my fair share of cruelty, suffering, blood and death as a Paramedic but this doesn't make me more reliable or wiser then other people who haven't. You see my point of view.

The majority of our military and are veterans, as well as their families, support Bush. This tells me two things, one he has their confidence, and Kerry does not, and two, they would rather have a man of proven character in office over that of a man who's character is in question.

Why is it that important that the President has the majority of vote from the military personal? How many people of the police, medical stuff, fire fighters and - most of all - persons who don't get their pay check from a government organisation - prefer Bush over Kerry and vice versa? Why is the job of these persons so important and - for example - not their social standing or something else? Why is the opinion of these persons more important then opinions of other persons? I'm just curios.

[Atrocities]

Ya know, M. Moore makes a compelling arguement with his movie. It does what it is designed to do very well. He points out facts that do make you think, that make you feel, that make you both angery and sad. If he were a lawyer, he would work for Insurance companies defending their guild as sin clients in court, twisting the facts to fit their case and ulitmately putting on the best case for his clients as he could. His movie does that, but it does it with the same intent an insurance lawyer putting on a case.

Now if you happen to sit on the jury, and all you are given is just the one side, Moores sides, you would do what any of us would, you would side with him.

Now if you happen to discover that there is more truth behind what you have been told, a lot more truth, then perhaps your decision would be based upon the whole big picture instead of only the left side of an incomplete frame.

Its a hard call, a very hard call, but in the end, it is a dog eat dog world, and the truth that you choose to believe in may ir may not be right or wrong, but it many seldom if ever be both.

Its a tough call, to vote between a liar, or a lair, both are in it for money, both are rich, and both are men of questionable character.

I will vote for Bush, not because of Iraq, or other, but because of the one thing that Kerry is against that Bush is for. A choice that I feel is more important to me than any other issue on the table. And that really has nothing to do with terrorism, economys, or wars.

In the end, it will be up to the electorial vote, not the popular vote, but the electorial vote, and they vote the way they are paid to. God help us. (Subjective belief, one that may or may not be accurate.)

Its time to make a choice, and each of us know that we will make the right one for us. Lets just hope that in the end, history will show that we chose wisely but it probably won't.

No I am not a big Micheal Moore fan, oh hell, I hate the fat bastard, but the truth is, his movie, although highly subjective and one sided, is worth seeing. Not for its anti Bush sentaments, but for its hidden, all though not dilibrately, story that war is a bad bad thing paid for by lives, human lives.

To that end, I stand corrected on my opinion, although I disagree with the movies one sided view of Bush, his administration, and the war, I can understand why it has earned the respect of many. I do not respect M. Moore, but I cannot argue with his film making genius. He would make a fine defense lawyer and or prosecutor. If only Californa had had him as their prosecutor on the O.J. case.

[Will]

AT, I'm glad that you finally saw it. You really don't have to agree with the man's politics to get something out of the movie. Besides the conspiracy theory bits, which have been getting the most knee-jerk reaction out of some conservatives, the central thesis of the film has recieved hardly any comment. This is an unfortunate theme through his films, I think. People get so worked up over his style of blindly going through any possibilities imaginable (eg. intro to Bowling for Columbine, where the shooters went bowling before going on the rampage, therefore bowling is evil... etc), that the actual Messages of the film get lost in an endless debate over the meaningless details.

You hit on one of what I think are two core Messages of the film, that war has a very high human cost, ignoring all the money that has been funneled into it. The images from the war are considered very shocking to many Americans, I think from the distinct American media practice of putting a facsade over everything. Any other country in the world would have seen, and did see, the pictures of the killed, wounded, and mourners in their media outlets. American media went for the "flashier" shots from a jet's undercarrige camera, or a splash screen of an American flag, or crowds cheering soldiers. The other stuff doesn't make people feel good, and it's a distinctly American belief that everyone should Feel Good, All The Time, No Matter What.

The other part of the message was where the true strength in America lies. It's with the Ugly American (referring to the engineer in the book of the same name), the working people who form the bulk of the armed forces, and the ones who have some kind of decency, helping others instead of just themselves. They are presented in contrast to the very rich Bush Administration officials, and the very rich corporate directors, who call the shots because they have the money, and thus, presumably, the power. Kerry fits in this group too, although IMHO, it's a bit different since he married into money rather than being born into it like most are.

You have the things that are important to you, I have things that are important to me, and those form our choices. And I hope with you that whichever one ends up "winning" truly is the best one.

[Will]

To respond, no, I am not a "specialist" in either politics or military strategy or tactics. Just because I'm not a specialist doesn't deny me an informed opinion on the subject, and most of the information I've seen points to arrogance and overconfidence on the part of the civilian leadership of the military in the Bush Administration. Much of what I know about the military comes from my grandfather (a WWII and Korean War Army veteran) and my father (served in the Navy as a lab tech, stayed in San Diego for entire term of service). What I do know is that the top generals in the armed forces were asking for more troops to help out in Iraq, and the civilian leadership of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et. al., who believed our military to be invincible, denied the extra forces.

I'm really tired at the moment (it's 3:30am local time), so the following google (searched 'military strategy bush generals iraq') links haven't been checked up on much, but at a cursory glance they seem fairly legitimate except for the Last one:
CBS, Gen. Zinni
Washington Post, dissention in senior ranks
Newsweek, President must command
Sun Tzu & Iraq War

On to the rest of it...

Religious aspects: it is far more than "lesbian woman’s Groups and teenage girls" opposing the assult on Roe v. Wade by the religious conservative elements of the Republican Party, and to me the former group you mentioned smacks of the predjudice so prevalant among some Republicans (I know it's a generalization on your part, I hope you don't acually believe that it's a problem with the "queers"). The argument against "In God we Trust" and "under God" in the Pledge do have some merit, as they were only put in to differentiate the US from the "godless Commies" during the Cold War, and it is very close to a government endorsement of religion. Right now, the Supreme Court has decided that it is enough that "God" could concievably cover a wide range of religious beliefs, and thus doesn't imply government endorsement of a specific religion; there are some that say government endorsement of ANY religion at all is going too far, and thus they want the words removed (among the Groups wanting this is Americans United for Seperation of Church and State, headed by, I believe, a reverend). Personally, I don't have a problem with it as long as the words aren't forced (ie, requiring kids to recite, etc), and that's already not legal. But the other major issue that the religious conservatives have been piping up about is homosexual unions. I have yet to hear an argument against this that doesn't in some way appeal to a religious doctorine, and if you can point me to one that doesn't, I would be very appreciative.

Democrats, fearing personal responsibility, etc, etc... well, if it hasn't already been made clear, I don't exactly like the Democrats either; I just usually prefer them to Republicans because they tend to be "progressive". But I can't believe that you think the Republicans are for personal freedoms after the PATRIOT Act, Republicans pushing a second Version of said act, proposals for a constitutional amendment banning homosexual unions, national ID cards and databases, CAPPS I and II... the Republicans are just as Big Government and restricting of freedom as the Democrats, they just do it in different areas of life. You want a party that is for personal freedom AND personal responsibility, go Libertarian (I did).

The Swift Boat veteran ads... I don't know of any credible source that is actually defending the slander in those ads. I mean, how many of those veterans actually did serve with John Kerry (in the sense that most Americans would interpret serve, as in they knew Kerry in Vietnam, not they were in Asia at the same time he was)? I think it was two. And the doctor who "treated" Kerry, but is not mentioned anywhere in the military medical records for Kerry's injuries. The anti-Bush ads at least had some facts behind them, the swift boat ads were just a bunch of old guys with a grudge in my view. Which is why I said that I think all the veterans Groups endorsements and condemnations are highly suspect. I don't believe them one way or the other, they're too biased. And the veterans in America are largely split when it comes to Bush or Kerry, and I get the distinct impression (especially from my grandfather) that most veterans don't like either candidate, they only dislike one more than the other.

[Phoenix-D]

You want some 'real' evil doers, AT? Try this.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/?q=node/view/78

Summary: the central vote-counting program used by 30 states has a intentional backdoor. Anyone with knowledge of it and access to the machine can change the vote counts. This isn't a bug, it isn't a security flaw. Its a built in fraud subroutine.

[Atrocities]

Thanks Phoenix-D.

[rextorres]

the president of Diebold - Walden W. O'Dell - is a MAJOR Bush backer and he has vowed to deliver Ohio to Bush. I think the implications are pretty obvious.

[Mephisto]

I don't believe Bush or Kerry would ever rig an election.