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.
Re: Rant: Evil Doer\'s Strike Again.
[img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Dogbone.gif[/img]
Hybrid Mode
