Just a few questions
Thank you so much for responding to my blog. I really appreciate everyone who has the courage to put down their comments. I will go into a detailed analysis discussing my support for Obama this weekend. In order for me to fully address your comments I must pose a few questions to the blogosphere in order to fully respond to your questions.
1. How do you define "victory" in Iraq? For instance-
A. Revolutionary War- over with the formal British surrender
B. War of 1812- over with the formal British surrender
C. Civil War- over with the formal surrender of the Confederacy
D. Mexican-American War- over with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
E. W.W.I.- over with the surrender of Germany
F. W.W. II -over with the surrender of Germany and Japan
G. Korean War-stalemate with the recognition of North and South Korea
H. Vietnam War- U.S. pulls out and South Vietnam becomes Communist
I. Gulf War I-over with Iraqi troops removed from Kuwait
J. Gulf War II-?????
Please tell me how you define victory and what does"cut and run" mean? If it means that another young American is not killed or wounded in the middle east than I am all for cutting and running. I think Reagan "cut and run" in Beirut and he was a genius right? How is O.K. for Reagan to "cut and run" but not Obama? But Reagan made us all feel good becuase "it was morning in America" and we "are a shining city on a hill". Wait, that sound like he was a great orator-damn him for fooling me!
2. Obama as a black man-
Is his mother not a white woman? Why do we call him black and not multiracial? What has Obama said to make his race an issue?
3. Security
If security is your number one priority, how can you vote for a party that allowed the greatest security disaster to take place on American soil? I think Bush was president on 9/11 so he DID NOT KEEP US SAFE!
Please clarify your points and I will get back to you.
BTW
Paul said it best, it is all about Iraq, get the troops home! What are they fighting and dying for?
posted by dole2obama @ 12:05 AM
6 Comments
6 Comments:
I sense that at least part of this was directed at me. So I will say a few things.
First, I think this 'war' is problematic and we should come home as quick as safely possible. But I think that for Constitutional reasons. I think there is formal agreement with Mr. Obama, but that does not mean there is substantive agreement. I am not persuaded at all that the Constitution drives his decision making.
Therefore, I do not think there is a victory that we can claim - only damage we can mitigate at this point. I appreciate yours and Paul's concerns, though there is probably substantive difference in 'why.' My heart breaks for the soldiers and Marines who are away and whose lives will be forever changed/damaged/destroyed because of the hell they have seen for a war we should not have been in, in the first place (and yes I admit that I supported the 'war' at the beginning). (side note: I am putting 'war' in quotes because this is not a war, it is a military action. A war takes an act of congress which we have not seen in over half a century).
It is not that there are not legitimate concerns, but I think we have missed them. I would be all for special ops systematically destroying al queida. But that is different from a preemptive regime change, etc.
I over simplified by calling Mr. Obama black. You are right - he is multiracial. I don't know of anything he has said to make his race an issue, I was referring to your second post in which his multi-ethnicity was a reason you supported him.
On security I think that is one of the grossest oversimplifications I have ever seen in my life... and I have seen a lot. It take years to destroy our intelligence agencies and years to plan something like that. To say that it happened on Bush's watch is formally true, but misses many of the controlling factors. I am not remotely saying that Bush has no culpability, but to argue that he is the responsible party because it happened eight months after he took office is mind-boggling. Furthermore, to argue along the lines of Bush is bad - therefore Obama is good fails to convince me. What is Mr. Obama going to do for security?
Of course I am in a real pickle because I think John McCain is eminently unqualified as well. So maybe I will just sit this one out. I think we are in trouble no matter which way we go. And, yes, I think Americans will die either way whether in Iraq or on our soil. The prospects make me sad.
Brett-
Thanks for the comments. You are correct in calling the "safety" issue an oversimplification. I was simply using an old debate tactict where I take my opponets stance on an issue (not yours) and use it to show how ridculous their argument is. Also I am not trying to convince you to vote for Obama. Vote for whoever you feel is the best candidate. This blog is simply my thoughts/feelings/reflections on the race. I try to keep it funny and light and sometimes blog way past my bedtime after a tough Laker loss and only the strong shoulders of Stilts to cry on. Take everything I say on here with a grain of salt, but thank you for the comments.
Matt, I appreciate that. I know that this is a cathartic outlet for you and not a mass-planned attempt to take over the world. At the same time you are a reasonable and intelligent friend who has moved from Dole to Obama - so it is a good place for me to hear what has caused that movement.
Unfortunately it is often hard to convey tone in an email (or blog). So a casual 'tell me why' can sound like an irate demand, 'explain yourself!' (and truth be told - I am Scotch/Irish, I have a hard time sounding casual when I want to). I actually have some friends from (very) different circles who are excited about Obama, but I haven't seen the appeal (myself) yet, so I am trying to figure out what the drive has been.
Ironically, I am very disheartened with the Republican party, but it has driven me the opposite direction... I would call myself... gasp....a libertarian...
Thanks for the dialogue!
I sense like Brett that quite a bit of this was directed to me regarding my post on your blog. So I will try and convey my thoughts and feelings
on several issues that you brought up Matt. And your question as well Garrett about how do I describe a Victory in Iraq. First let me say that I think reading, discussing and respecting ones views even though we might not all agree is what is so great about America!! Free speech, open minds and weighing both sides of an issue or issues. Like you said Matt, no one is trying to offend anybody or back one into the corner which is great.
1. How do I define "victory" in Iraq? Victory in Iraq is helping the Iraqi people defeat the Terrorists and trying to let them build a Democratic State (who will ever forget the purple finger they so proudly displayed when they were allowed to vote, openly). You might say what kind of a victory is that for the U.S. Let me explain. If we just picked up and left Iraq would become a safe haven for terrorists to plan attacks against us and our interests abroad and our allies. All the progress that has been made in Iraq with regard to human rights in the region would be an huge loss. They would never again trust us to support them. It would pose grave threats for our security and interests in the region. Iran would march right into Iraq and view our premature withdrawal as a victory for them. They would then be top dog in the Middle East (watch out Israel). If the entire Middle East turned their support to Iran which they very well could we wouldn't have to worry about the price of oil we would have to worry about no oil being available to our country at any price. Our economy would die if the Middle East supply was cut off. Perhaps that discussion about our oil dependancy will come up in a later blog. A country as great as ours should NOT have to be dependant on other countries for our oil supply. I know that some may be thinking "oh so we have lost thousands of American soldiers over oil." That is not my point at all. This war was not started because of oil it was started because 19 hijacker's decided to turn airplanes into missles and kill as many Infidels as they possibly could on Sept. 11th. The worst attack on American soil. Which leads me to the next questions posed to us. I will try and make the rest shorter but it is tough to do that.
2. I have never mentioned the fact that Obama is black. I wouldn't care if he was purple, yellow, green, orange, white, whatever. Color has nothing to do with it. I just plain do not subscribe to his way of thinking, pure and simple.
3. Security. On this one you really made the hair on my head stand up!! Blaming Bush for 911...........come on Matt. I know that you really don't believe that. If you want to place blame on anyone let's look at the attacks that lead up to 911 that happened on Bill Clinton watch.
1. Oct. 12, 2000-The USS Cole was bombed, by terrorists in Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.
And just a few months away from W. taking office.
2. Aug. 7, 1998-Terrorists bombs destroy the U.S. embasssies in Nairobi and Tanzania. 12 American die along with 291 other's. Over 5,000 wounded.
3. June 21, 1998-rocket propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy.
4. July 27, 1996-A pipe bomb explodes during the Olympic games in Atlanta killing 1 person and injuring 111.
5. June 25, 1996-A bomb on a fuel truck explodes outside the U.S. air force installation in Saudi. 19 soldiers killed and 515 wounded.
6. Nov. 13, 1995-Car bomb in Saudi kills seven people, five Americans.
7. April 19, 1995-Car bomb destroys the Murrah Fed. Building in Okl. killing 168 people,wounding over 600.
8. Feb. 1993- A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking structure of the WTC, killing 6, wounding 600.
My reason for bringing this up is not because Bill was to busy with Monica to do anything about it these attack :). But to illustrate that all these attacks were carefully planned out by Al Qaida and other fundamentalists who want to kill us. The attacks under the Clinton era were just lead ups to the BIG one, Sept. 11th. Alot of people, on both sides and agencies fell asleep at the switch. America woke up that day. I thank God every night that we have the BEST intelligence possible to try and keep this country safe and so far we have succeeded. And no matter what one might think about President Bush I am thankful that he has been at the helm. In my heart I know he has done what he feels is best to keep we Americans safe. He has been strong, focused and resolute on the war on terrorism. He doesn't run his Presidency by what the latest polls think of him. Enough as this may take up the entire blog, sorry.
1)a-Cut & run. When used in the context of war means "cowardly retreat" or withdraw or retire before the job is done.
I have always been fascinated with politics and the Middle East. In fact I was looking through some of the books that I have read and came upon one written by Richard Nixon, copyright 1980 entitled "The Real War." He talks about the Middle East and other Regions that were and are a threat to us. It is interesting to look back on how forward thinking Nixon was with regard to what has happened since his writing and what is happening now. His insight was and is amazing. Love ya, Susan
Wow, I am learning so incredibly much from the debates that all of you are involved in. I can see good points on both sides. I think it is great that Matt offers us this open forum to express our beliefs and desires. The great challenge is to have the courage to say what we believe and know that it is done with the best of intentions and not to be pointed at any one person. We are soooo lucky to be Americans.
By the way, Brett, how is it that Obama is not following the Constitution? Or did I misunderstand here? Love your input, Brett!
Love,
Denise
Hey Denise! All I really said was that I am not convinced that it is for constitutional reasons that Obama is opposed to the Iraq military action. My concern is really on a more general level. By definition it is hard for a liberal to be a constitutionalist. A liberal wants to change and progress. A liberal wants to abandon the past. Now I know that is painting with a very broad brush, but it is meant to. A conservative tries to conserve or maintain - a liberal tries to change. Now you must ask what is being conserved and what is being maintained. A conservative may be conserving a tradition, but not the constitution and that needs to be parsed out. A liberal could (possibly) be trying to change back to the way things were (though this is yet to be seen in actuality).
Now there are constitutional ways to change and unconstitutional ways. The constitution never said it couldn't change - rather that there were ways to do it (see Article V). So you may very well elect a liberal to legislature - one who can propose amendments to the Constitution - but only conservatives should serve in the Judicial Branch because their job is not to create/revise laws - but to enforce existing laws as they were intended - they are not supposed to have any legislative authority (i.e., authority of change).
The funny thing is - our representatives (whether they be in the legislative or executive branches) are supposed to have a job description (viz. the Constitution). If you hire a doctor, a teacher, etc - they are supposed to conform to the job description. But that is now how the American populace votes any more - we do not vote for those who we think understand the constitution best - we vote for those who will do what we want - regardless of the constitution. We have broken the system.
Mr. Obama concerns me with his views on gun control, redistribution of wealth, medical care, etc. These are constitutional issues. Article I, section 8 lays out the job our Congress is supposed to do - and it limits that job:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
"To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
"To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
"To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
"To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
"To provide and maintain a Navy;
"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
The Congress has gone so far beyond this mandate that it is ridiculous. There have been key points in our history where government has grown (Civil War, New Deal, Second Iraq War, etc). But this is contrary to the intent of our founding government which wrote the constitution to limit the federal government, to strengthen states' rights, and to expect individual responsibility. But the government has changed - far more than the constitution has. If we want to grow the government and give more rights to the Congress we need to change our constitution - they don't have the right to regulate health care.
According to I.9 the government was not allowed to tax in a gradated fashion. This was changed in the sixteenth amendment - which I would love to see repealed (maybe I am a liberal :) ).
The problem, in my mind, is that this is not the discussion that people have during election season - they talk about whom they like, what they would like, etc - rather than who understands and will actually uphold the constitution according to their oath of office. Our constitution is built upon a model of limited government. However, it has steadily grown (not so steadily in times of crisis). Now the typical person thinks that if something is good - the government should do it. Our founding fathers had very narrow view of what the government should do. We have lost our way.
When our legislators keep voting to increase gun control, when they seek national health care, when they expand the footprint of the federal government - they are acting contrary to both the terms and the spirit of the constitution. And I think our current president is one of the guiltiest when it comes to this (see his medicare increase, the nature, terms and method of the current military action, etc). I want a constitutionalist in office (all of them).
Sorry.... longer response than you were looking for and I know that there are a few people reading this who have probably lost blood after blowing a vein in their necks... so after they bandage themselves up, I am sure I will hear from them... :)
Matt, thanks for the forum to dialogue. Can I go back to lurking now? :)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home