70 thoughts on “Make sure to read Dr. Kushiner’s comments on Touchstone”
In other words, Dr. Kushiner, it doesn’t matter how corrupt, incompetent or destructive a candidate is, as long he is against abortion, you’re voting for him.
Read it again Dean. Dr. Kushiner says that values have hierarchy. He is not writing to your intense dislike of Bush.
For all the rhetoric about the “abortion holocaust,” it doesn’t seem to me that Christians really believe that. If I really thought that over a million *persons* were literally being murdered every year, I’d do everything I could to stop it. Frankly, anyone who truly believes that should be out bombing abortion clinics. Screw the culture war, anyone who actually thinks that over a million people in the U.S. are being murdered by abortion should be out making real war. You should be out blowing up clinics and shooting down anyone who participates in abortion, in the same way that one would have been justified in using violence to stop the murders at Auschwitz. If I thought even *one* innocent person was going to be executed for no reason at city hall today, I’d skip work and try to prevent that.
Looked at another way, if Saddam Hussein killed a million people during his time in power, that’s really nothing compared to the million people killed by abortion every year in the U.S. Thus, going by the logic that the U.S. invaded Iraq to “confront evil,” Saddam Hussein would ironically have been justified in invading and occupying the United States if he did it with the intention of eliminating abortion. So what if Saddam Hussein is a dictator? How can you “balance” democracy over the ruthless, murderous holocaust of a million a year? So what if Saddam has rape rooms? How can you balance a few thousand rapes against a million murders? So what if Saddam murdered a million people over twenty years when we do it every year!
Thus, under the logic of “confronting evil,” many of the countries in the world would be justified in invading and occupying the U.S. as long as they did it to stop abortion. In other words, if you truly think that over a million people in the U.S. are being murdered every year, that one issue would automatically outweigh virtually every other issue. Forget democracy, forget economics, forget everything else.
Since almost none of the opponents of abortion are out bombing clinics or arranging for foreign invasions, I conclude that they fail to perceive the logic of their own rhetoric. And I think what’s really happening is that they truly don’t even believe the rhetoric.
Let me give you an example. I mentioned this example a few weeks ago, and exactly no one responded to it. You are a fireman, called to the scene of a raging fire in a fertility clinic. As you enter the lab you see a fertility technician barely conscious on the floor next to a small freezer containing 100 frozen embryos. In seconds the room will be engulfed in flame. You can either
a) rescue the technician and let the embryos be destroyed or
b) rescue the freezer with 100 embryos and let the technician burn to death.
Whom do you rescue, and why?
Note 3
The explanation is that as Stalin said “one murder is a tragedy and a million murders is a statistic.”
You can resolve the embryos/technician fairly easily. The embryos would probably be damaged by their rescue mooting the issue. We get your point. People would tend to value the life of the technician over the embryos. This is because someone would probably mourn severely if the technician died. People would probably not mourn as intensely over the embryos, but they might if they were infertile couples looking to conceive.
This issue rarely arises. The common case is a healthy young woman aborting a foetus for convenience while millions of prospective adoptive parents wait for a baby.
Missourian writes: “People would tend to value the life of the technician over the embryos. This is because someone would probably mourn severely if the technician died. People would probably not mourn as intensely over the embryos, but they might if they were infertile couples looking to conceive.”
I don’t mean to sound heartless, but I think the reason that the technician would be rescued, the reason that the technician would be mourned more, the reason why the life of the technician would be valued over that of the embryos, is because people, even Christians, simply do not value embryonic life as much as post-birth life. That doesn’t mean that embryonic life is trivial. It simply means that in many moral situations the lives of people already born trump the lives of embryos.
This is why many Christians do not feel that abortion is the ultimate issue when making political decisions, but rather that it is an issue that has to be balanced with many other issues. This may elicit the argument “how can you balance the murder of a million unborn with [fill in the blank].” But I can guarantee you that 99.99% of the people would rescue the technician rather than the embryos, even were there 1,000 or 10,000 embryos that could be saved.
Dean,
re: “In other words, Dr. Kushiner, it doesn?t matter how corrupt, incompetent or destructive a candidate is, as long he is against abortion, you?re voting for him.”
Corrupt? Incompetent? Destructive? If this is how “fair and objective” you are in regards to President Bush (unless you will now assume you were only talking hypothetically) then truth and reality are not a priority for you. I hope you were only talking in theory and creating one of those hypotheticals “academics” like to dream up to obfuscate the real issues and draw attention to a potential “dilemma” that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Christian,
Dean was not making an acedemic hypothetcial. For him, President Bush is far worse than the person described by the realively mild pejortives he used in the post you question.
Jim, the question you raise and the challenge you make are both excellent. You are correct that those who oppose abortion (Christian or not) ought to take more forceful action on behalf of the unborn children. However, the equivalence you draw between the war in Iraq and action against abortion does not hold up. The war in Iraq is the action of the state taken with the approval of our elected representatives. Violent action against abortion providers would be an individual action taken in opposition to law. States have the right, legally and morally, to take life both to punish and to protect. Individuals do not have that right except in exceptional circumstances. Most believe that a Christian never has the right to perpetrate violence individually to punish only to protect.
Dietrich Bonhoffer made the decision that Hitler was so evil AND the state was non-functional in controlling that evil that to participate in killing Hitler was acceptable. He and his co-conspirators were unsuccessful and paid with their lives. With abortion that question perhaps becomes whether or not the inability and unwillingness of the state to protect children from abortion is sufficient to over-ride the prohibition against individual violence. Some people have made the decision that violence is justified, most have not. The majority of those who either use or advocate violence of which I am aware have not made the decision based on the types of criteria I am discussing. They are simply angry, violent people and the abortion component gives them an excuse to kill.
Before acting in a violent way, one must also decide the extent of the evil. There is a big difference between being evil and participating in evil. Bonhoffer’s target was Hitler, not all Nazis. Who, among the abortionists, would qualify as a Hitler? How, as individuals, are we to make those judgements? Conversion does take place even among those who seem most committed to performing abortions.
Given the state of persecution against those who actively oppose abortion (the RICO suit against Operation Rescue, the arrests near abortion clinics of those who are simply praying), unless one is single or has a family commitment to accepting the consequences of such persecution, direct action becomes a difficult decision. Nevertheless, if we expect and want change, someone is going to have to do it. That does not mean that violent opposition is the only or best course. Martin Luther King and Ghandi achieved more social change with their non-violent approach than their violent counterparts. They put their lives on the line and witnessed to the conscience of each and everyone.
The “ethical dilemma” you raise, is another one of those false and misleading hypotheses that has little practical value. Nevertheless,you may be correct that despite our opposition to abortion, we have fallen prey to the mind of the world that life is not intrinsically and equally valuable. Perhaps on some level we refuse direct action because we really don’t believe that the embryos and unborn children are really people or are less of a person than we are. Maybe we are just too selfish and afraid. Such a state does not in anyway mean that the principal that we assert is incorrect. It simply means that we have to do more to witness to the truth.
Note 5
Jim, both of us seem to be talking about emotion. Emotion is not always a good guide to what is moral.
I must admit I am flumoxed by this “logic” that says, “You think abortion is murder and evil and you think that this tyrant is engaged in murder and evil. And you think that we must send in the 82nd Airborne in order to destroy the regime of this murderous and evil tyrant. Therefore you must believe that we should murder abortionists and bomb abortion clinics.”
On the other hand, Jim makes a very fine, salon style, academic debating point. So let us sit back, sip our wine, think about Jim’s point while we also ponder the simple bumpkins trying to live in what they call the “real” world. And on Sunday, in the midst of our prayers, we shall say a special one for the enlightenment of these silly little people who ingorantly see inaction and indecision in our ability to comprehend nuance and complexity.
How can you say you are voting for George W. Bush because he respects the sanctity if human life and then ignore the massive loss of innocent civian live in Iraq resulting from his decision to launch an unnecessary war? George Warmonger Bush has the blood of 100,000 dead civilians on his hands.
From the Financial Times: October 28, 2004 – “Death toll of Iraqi civilians tops 100,000, study says” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1333734,00.html
“At least 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the allied invasion of Iraq in March last year, according to a study by public health experts published today.
The risk of dying prematurely has risen by 250 per cent for ordinary Iraqi people since Saddam Hussein was toppled, the US and Iraqi scientists estimate, while the risk of dying violently is 58 times higher.
Most of the victims of violence are women and children killed by allied airstrikes, said the online report in the Lancet medical journal. It called for changes in coalition military tactics to cut the death toll.”
Note 3. Different evils are fought in different ways. Real world distinctions apply that cannot be subsumed to a single definition of the term.
Note 11: Let’s make sure these numbers are accurate before we jump to conclusions.
I must confess that I haven’t taken the time to fully read over this website, though a cursory glance reveals numbers far more conservative than those posted in the Times article. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
The methodology employed by IraqBodyCount only looks at deaths reported publically by major news sources, so it would not include those deaths that are not reported. As result it would undercount the actual number of deaths. The Lancet study, by contrast, based it’s estimate on an extrapolation from a sample gathered in interviews with hospitals, doctors and government officials, so I would expect there to be some margin of error and a possible over-estimate.
However, we should not allow ourselves to get so lost in the details that we miss the major point. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians are dead, and milions of Iraqis are now at greater of violence, because of the unproked and unnecessary war unleashed by George W. Bush.
Even if one supports the argument that invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, our planning for the post-war period was so haphazard and misconceived that many thousands of additional deaths have occurred due to to the instability and violence we allowed to develop. The minute we stated our intention to depose Saddam Hussein the safety and security of the Iraqi became our responsibility, (Pottery-Barn Rule) and we have failed miserably.
Dean, anyone who has been on this blog for any length of time knows that war is not the real issue for you–George Bush is. For you, our President is an immoral, corrupt, incompetent, worthless, dangerous and illegitimate President with no redeeming value at all. He is probably demonic and ought to be tried in The Hague for war crimes. We also know that no evidence or logic to the contrary will alter your opinion in the slightest. Your maniacal, irrational opposition to the man and your willingness to immediately accept the veracity of any bad thing you hear about him make your posts of little value. Your bias is so extreme and obsessive that any evidence you have to support your case is too questionable to even be considered. You do yourself and your causes a great disservice by your hysteria.
So I guess you don’t want to hear my joke?
Question: What is the difference between the Vietnam war and the Iraq war?
Answer: George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam war.
(snare drum please)
John Kerry had a plan too, it’s just that Kerry’s didn’t work.
On a more serious note, as commander in chief one should not plan “how to get out of a war”. The only effective way to get out of a war is to win it.
During the Vietnam days, everybody I knew had a plan to get out of the war. One of the people in my dorm who drew #1 in the lottery didn’t go because he was black and got admitted to medical school. A good friend of mine, a die hard Democrat, was planning to ramp up his blood pressure when he went to take a physical–he didn’t have to because he blew out his knee in a intramural basketball game instead. I didn’t have to plan since I had a high draft number plus a medical deferment. I believe that President Bush also had a high draft number and actually placed himself at greater risk of going to Vietnam by his enlistment in the Air Guard than if he had not enlisted. John Kerry enlisted only when it became clear he was going to be drafted–a wise and prudent choice.
Note 17
Dean,
So you think flying fighter jets is an easy job? Sure…
Michael: I can’t wait until this election is over and we can discuss less rancorous topics. Pray for a decisive outcome on Tuesday, one way or the other.
Michael writes: “You are correct that those who oppose abortion (Christian or not) ought to take more forceful action on behalf of the unborn children.”
What I’m saying is that if one is going to call abortion “murder of a person” and a “holocaust,” then certain actions morally and logically follow from that. As I said, if someone really believed that about abortion, then they should be bombing clinics and shooting their staff, or at the very least massing around the clinics so as to shut them down. While it is true that there is no abortion “Hitler” there are certainly a limited number of providers. It doesn’t make any sense to use the rhetoric of murder and holocaust and then not act according to that.
But Christians rarely take forceful action to prevent this “holocaust.” This tells me that they really don’t believe that abortion is murder and holocaust. It’s like talking to a guy who says that exercise is absolutely the most important thing you can do, and then you find out that he rarely exercises. Thus his belief in the goodnes of exercise is sentimental and abstract rather than operative and concrete. We would be justified in concluding that he really didn’t believe in the importance of exercise, his claims notwithstanding.
Likewise, it is my belief that most people who say that abortion is murder and a holocaust really don’t believe that, because they don’t act like they believe it. If we thought that one innocent person was going be shot today for no reason we’d all be out in the streets protesting and trying to prevent it. But when it comes to the alleged vast nationwide “murderous holocaust” of abortion killing 3,000 persons every day, people post to a blog and vote in November.
Rhetoric is a tool. In the case under discussion the rhetoric of murder and holocaust is used as a litmus test to separate the sheep from the goats, and to manipulate people into voting a certain way, even as the opponents of abortion refrain from any other actions that would indicate that they really believed it were a literal holocaust. In other words, in daily life they act like it’s a moral issue alongside of other moral issues, but when it comes to politics it’s a holocaust. I don’t buy it.
Note 19: Dean, it’s called a rim shot, not a snare drum, although it is performed on a snare drum. As employed by comedians, it’s intended to startle the audience into a laugh, especially if the joke is stupid and weak, like yours.
Note 22. Jim, think this through. Real life distinctions cannot be subsumed to a demand for rhetorical uniformity. The language used against abortion was also used against slavery in both England and America. America had a civil war, England did not. Slavery was evil in both, and a holocaust of sorts (limited genocide might be more accurate). Demanding conformity to singular rhetorical definition, especially when those terms are conditioned by other events (holocaust and the Final Solution for example) does not reflect how language functions in real life thus making the demand unreasonable.
Note 17. Dean, you don’t understand Viet Nam, and you don’t understand the seriousness and severity of the terrorist threat. Read the transcript of Bin Laden’s latest statement. Thinks he wants a Bush win? I don’t.
Did you watch Nightline tonight? The consensus was that Bin Ladin definetly wants a Bush win because Bush is perceived so negatively in the Islamic world that he serves as a recruitment tool for Al Qaeda.
How did you feel seeing the mass murderer who killed 3,000 Americans, still roaming free, mocking our President and delivering his fair warning that another attack may be coming? Did you wish, as I did, that the bulk of our resources had not been diverted from his securing his capture so they could be poured into the costly and deadly quagmire in Iraq instead?
Costly and deadly quagmire? What did I say about not understanding Viet Nam or Iraq?
If Kerry is elected he will take his crack foreign policy team starting with Joseph Biden as Secretary of State (Joseph Biden?) and promptly look for ways to -negotiate! Globalist pacifists never understand the nature of tyrannical threat until too late — and not even then sometimes.
I’m not really sure how you can condemn the military action on one hand, and then condemn the president for not being aggresive enough on the other. I don’t hear ideas why Kerry would be a better president but only how much you dislike Bush. Most of Kerry’s support comes from animus towards Bush rather than any qualifications Kerry might hold, IMO.
No one really trusts a Kerry presidency in wartime, not enough to make a difference anyway, and thus Bin Laden’s threat will end up helping Bush. Bin Laden miscalculated. America is not Spain.
From Kerry’s comments, it seems apparent that he will maintain an offensive stance in rooting out terrorists. The only disagreement he has made with the Afghanistan conflict is that we didn’t do enough to get bin Laden in the first place, not that we didn’t negotiate with the Taliban. I don’t think he would be “soft” in dealing with al-Qaida or other such groups.
Has Bush been too much of a pacifist for not dealing militarily with North Korea, Syria or Iran, all of which have made their nuclear ambitions clear? Is he “negotiating” with terrorists for not having used US military might? Why is it that when Bush neglects to act with bombs he is showing “restraint” while Kerry is just “pacifying” our enemies? This is a double standard, methinks.
Kerry’s rhetoric and record don’t match. He’s been on the hard left since his youth, but now portrays himself to the right of George Bush on terrorism. I don’t think many people believe it, even those who will vote for him.
Korea and Iran, have not invaded their neighbors. Syria has (Lebanon) but the strategic implications are different.
Bush is not a “pacifist” and neither is Kerry. “Restraint” is often a code word for different policies. Bush and Kerry have very different views of America’s role and responsibility in the world (Kerry is the globalist), so depending on whether the left or right is using the term determines what meaning should be ascribed. Both can be reluctant to use military force (the general meaning of “restraint”), but their reluctance can be derived from different starting points and thus portend different conclusions.
James, you wrote, “From Kerry’s comments, it seems apparent that he will maintain an offensive stance in rooting out terrorists.” But it’s not Kerry’s comments that matter. We already know he will say anything to get elected, as his foolish insistence that Bush personally let terrorists steal explosives in Iraq, even after the NYT story has been discredited, proves. It’s his record that matters, his consistent support (amidst frequent absenteeism from Senate votes) for weakening this country diplomatically and militarily, and his opposition to any kind of military action undertaken to support this country’s security, especially under Reagan. If he is elected to be Commander-in-Chief, he will fail to protect this country. “By their deeds shall you know them.”
Bush’s course with North Korea, Syria, and Iran has been not one of pacifism, but of tough diplomatic dealing. By refusing to appease North Korea, for instance, as Jimmy “Father of the North Korean Nuclear Program” Carter and Bill Clinton did, and as Kerry has announced in detail that he will (plus he wants to sell nuclear fuel to Iran!), he has put these countries on notice that America will no longer assist in its own destruction. Your drawing of a double standard is a false one which takes into account only the surface of the two candidates’ campaign rhetoric. You are comparing an apple to a rotten banana.
I don’t think Kerry is a pacifist. In reality, he is more of an isolationist. He wants the U.N. to handle everything and keep the U.S. out of it unless absolutely necessary and we are then drafted by the rest of the world to solve the problem,i.e., the global test. Because of his experience in VietNam which IMO genuinely seared him, he is afraid of any use of American power that is perceived as unilateral as Viet Nam was. He has not been able to breakout of the mental and emotional handcuffs into which he placed himself by his reaction to the Viet Nam experience. He is afraid of and deeply distrustful of American power. As a result, IMO Kerry and his administration will not act decisively when it is called for and tend to over-react in other situations. Of course, no President is free to make a complete break from past administrations. The exigencies of the office will temper to some extent what Kerry can do.
Bush’s commitment to spreading freedom scares me a little, it would be real easy for that to get out of hand.
We must be careful not to fall into the hyperbolic rhetoric of election time thinking that either side is describing the situation as it really is. Is Iraq as good as Bush tells us it is, no. Is it as bad as Kerry tells us it is, no.
Is the world going to come to an end if Kerry wins, no. In fact not much will change. Nader is correct on one point. The reason the election is so close is that there is not much of a perceived difference between the two major parties. Our system makes it really difficult for a third party to make headway or to effectively challenge the prevailing political orthodoxy. If Colorado’s proposed experiment with proportionate assignment of electoral votes works and catches on, we will have a mass of third parties to contend with, and probably the House of Representative deciding more than a few Presidential elections.
While it may seem a technical point, we don’t actually vote for Kerry or Bush, we vote for electors from our state that then cast their vote for President. The electors are not bound to vote for a particular candidate. They can vote for anyone they please. There is one Republican elector out there who has publically stated he will not vote for Bush, he will vote for another Republican other than Bush. Choose your House candidates wisely. If you want Bush to win, don’t split your ticket on this one. If you want Kerry to win, vote for the Democrat House candidate. MSNBC had a report last night that calculated there are 33 probable ways in which the election can end in a tie. Factor in the lawyers for both sides running around in the weeds and the chances of a clear decisive victory on November 2 for either candidate are not good. If that happens, then we are most vulnerable then to a terror attack.
Given the wide confidence edge that Bush holds in the handling of the war on terror (53% to 37%) any serious terror threat helps Bush.
Good points Michael although I think you underestimate the real differences between a Kerry and Bush administration. Events force these differences I think so during times of relative calm it may not matter much but in times of crisis it matters a great deal. We live with whatever outcome happens on Nov. 2 of course.
BTW, Nader, although a charter member of the hard left, made tons of cash in the stock market during the boom. He’s a economic nationalist by day and a closet capitalist by night. It’s a bit like Kerry telling us taxes should be raised while Teresa paid only 12% on her income.
Dean,
re:”How did you feel seeing the mass murderer who killed 3,000 Americans, still roaming free, mocking our President and delivering his fair warning that another attack may be coming? Did you wish, as I did, that the bulk of our resources had not been diverted from his securing his capture so they could be poured into the costly and deadly quagmire in Iraq instead?”
And you think a Kerry will have the necessary guts, resolve, passion, and integrity to get Osama. The same Kerry that voted against the liberation of Kuwait, voted against a strong defense budget, flip-flops all over the place on fighting terrorism, isn’t sure on whether the US should have deposed Saddam, and voted against $87 billion to fund and support our military. Wake up man! Smell the reality!
Christian–see note 16 re Dean and Bush.
Fr. Hans,
You are probably correct that the differences will be greater than I assumed in #31. I’m just trying to be an optimist. Christian more accurately describes Kerry’s approach. My biggest concern is that Kerry to an even greater extent than Bill Clinton will tilt toward Islam in our foreign policy as a way of trying to appease the terroists. Trying to work through the UN will have that effect in and of itself. I really do think Kerry is afraid of and conflicted about the power this country has which is far different than wanting to emphasize diplomacy over military force. I think he honestly feels that no one country should have as much power as we do which leads him to try and weaken this country when he can. Yet, we have been attacked and face a genuine threat. IMO, some of his flip/flops come from that point of conflict, not necessarily solely from political expediency. Do we really want a President that is afraid?
Note 35
Yes, I would say that Kerry is very ambiguous about American power. In an interview circa 1971 he was quoted as saying that if the United States left South Viet Nam the people there would be able to choose their own government? Could he have really thought that the North Vietnamese solidly supplied by China and Russia would not press forward to crush the Army of South Viet Nam? Could he really have thought that Ho Chi Minh would institute free and fair elections giving non-Communists a chance at office? What was he thinking?
Beats me. Sometimes I run into Baby Boomers who preen when they describe themselves as having participated in demonstrations which ended the Viet Nam war. I love to ask them if, as Democrats, they felt compelled to oppose a War begun by John F. Kennedy and prosecuted by Lyndon Johnson. Somehow these people like to think of Viet Nam as Nixon’s war, what a joke. I believe Eisenhower had a change to intervene in Viet Nam and to his credit, he declined. However, the question I most enjoy asking is this: Are you content with the result? Did you anticipate a different result? If so what? Are you happy that the entire Vietnamese population lives under one of the most severe Communitst regimes in the world?
Why was opposing the War more moral than supporting it? Tell me again. Something about “War is not good for children and other living things.” Did anyone tell Ho Chi Minh that? Apparently not. What are concentration camps good for? Are concentration camps good for children and other living things? I would love to meet up with Peter, Paul and Mary someday. Great music to march to the re-education camp. Who did Peter, Paul and Mary think was fighting for “freedom and justice?” Hmmmm. Wonder. I suppose they would state that they only intended to support the domestic civil rights crusade led by Martin Luther King. But, I know different, they appeared at many specific anti-War rallies. Sigh. We Boomers never stop fighting that War.
Note 37
I have described myself as an “experiential Christian.” I live my life, then, when I compare the course of my life with what the Scriptures say about living, I can only conclude that the Scriptures are right. Beyond that I hand the baton to others. I don’t pretend to truly understand many of the big questions raised by belief in Christ. I just do because He has been gracious enough to reveal himself to me. At which point you remind me “to she who has been given much, much is expected.”
On a very simplistic level, if a Christian votes for a pro-abortion candidate because he thinks that candidate is far better than the alternative on issues other than abortion, isn’t that Christian making a deal with the Devil. Hmmm,,, I will go along with your pro-abortion policies for a while because I want a better foreign policy. I am not sure that works. If we have yet another four years of pro-abortion administration we will have terrible policies instituted in scientific research and terrible judges nominated to the life-long federal bench (shudder.”)
The damage could be almost beyond repair. Once the voting public feels that it acquires a concrete benefit from growing and harvesting embryos if will be difficult to persuade them to give it up. Again, embryos don’t vote and have no money. They will lose the battle.
You seem to forget that while America may have “champagne” dreams of global military domination, our growing budget deficits mean that we be doing it on a “six pack of Budweiser” budget. Nearly three quarters of the US budget deficit is currently financed by foreign investors. As US tax revenue continues to be reduced by fiscally irresponsible tax cuts, the size of deficit as a percentage of GDP will continue to grow, eventually reaching a point where the US government will not be considered very credit-worthy anymore.
Once the foreign investors begin to pull back that means that the funding for the US federal deficit will have to come from domestic credit sources. This will push US interest rates sharply higher. Higher interest rates will slow business investment and consumer spending, and could push many families already carrying heavy debt loads into bankruptcy. The resulting recession will trim tax revenue even further.
When you look at the fiscal recklessness and economic danger that accompanies Bush’s grandiose and aggressive unilateralist foreign policy, Kerry’s multi-lateral approach begins to make sense. We need to to return to a foreign policy approach of working together with our allies within established structures of international cooperation. This will allow us to share the economic burden of maintaining international security, while lending greater international legitimacy to our actions.
Re: “The consensus was that Bin Ladin definetly wants a Bush win because Bush is perceived so negatively in the Islamic world that he serves as a recruitment tool for Al Qaeda.” – Mansoor Ijaz, FNC contributor, stated, in an interview yesterday with Greta Van Sustern, that a Kerry election would also benefit Islamofascist terrorist recruitment, because Kerry would take a “maintain the status quo” UN-European appeasement approach (which includes, according to Kerry advisor Richard Holbrooke, “working with moderate Arab states [and] put more pressure on Israel”) that would tell the terrorists that what they were doing was working.
So which is it? Recall that the terrorists response to Spanish withdrawal from Iraq was to threaten more terrorism in Spain.
Re: Kerry being seared by his experience in Vietnam – on what do you base this assertion? Kerry opposed the Vietnam war before he signed up, he opposed to it when he was there and he opposed it when he came back. The only thing about Vietnam, as far as I know, that was, according to Kerry himself, “seared” into his memory was something he never did, which was make a trip into Cambodia with CIA agents. The only thing serving in Vietnam did was give him a chip to play for his future life in politics. How could anyone who has images of Vietnam “seared” into his memory possibly support a Vietnam draft dodger for president, and then ask that same draft-dodging president to campaign for him?
Michael: You know I respect you as a good and intelligent person whose views on spirituality in particular have provided me with many insights. However, I confess that I do not understand the logical thought process that enables you to overlook the negative consequences of so many of Mr. Bush’s questionable decisions.
President Bush has performed his job poorly, and I believe this to be an objective, not a subjective, assessment. Despite repeated warning of an impending terrorist attack, he did nothing to strengthen America’s defenses before September 11th. He turned a healthy budget surplus into permanent structural budget deficits that threaten our economy. He failed to capture Bin Ladin when we had him cornered at Tora Boara. He launched an unprovoked war against Iraq and provided justifications for that war that proved to be completely false. He mismananged the occupation of Iraq allowing that country to slip into anarchy, chaos and instability that is now proving difficult to reverse. Under his watch America will have lost more jobs than it has created for the first time since the Great Depression. He did nothing to develop alternative sources of energy in the face of rising oil prices. He has allowed greater numbers of Americans to lose their health insurance coverage and fall below the poverty level.
How do you do it? How do you ignore all of the above knowing that in the private sector a chief executive with such an abysmal record would be fired without a second thought?
On this idea that Kerry would “maintain an offensive stance in rooting out terrorists”, oh really? It seems that John Kerry can truly be all things for all people (which is easy to do when your only single operating principle is doing whatever it takes to maintain a healthy political career). For evidence of this take a look at what Kerry actually says (these are quotes from the first debate):
On staying in Iraq:
“I’m not talking about leaving. I’m talking about winning.”
“Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we’re there. We have to succeed. We can’t leave a failed Iraq.”
On leaving Iraq:
“And our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there …”
“I believe that when you know something’s going wrong, you make it right. That’s what I learned in Vietnam.”
[Dennis Prager from the article linked above comments:] What was it that John Kerry “learned in Vietnam?” To leave a war he regarded as a mistake.
On America acting alone:
“I’ll never give a veto to any country over our security.”
On America acting only with world support or within an alliance:
“But if and when you do it (act alone), Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test …”
On the war being a mistake:
“This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment.”
“The president made a mistake in invading Iraq.”
“The war is a mistake.”
On the war being important enough to have to win:
“I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that.”
After hearing Kerry call the war a mistake, the moderator Jim Lehrer asked the logical question: “Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?
John Kerry’s answer: “No, and they don’t have to, providing we have the leadership that I’m offering.”
[Prager comments:]Now what does that response, arguably the most important thing the senator said in the debate, mean? Does it mean that American soldiers won’t die for what John Kerry continually labels a mistake because he will prosecute the war more effectively? Or does it mean that Americans won’t die for this mistaken war because he will leave Iraq and then there will be no mistake to die for?
Me: And if you push all this aside and say, “Yeah, but this is all about Iraq and Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism” then your not really paying attention.
Dean, the only thing you are half correct on is the budget deficit, you are correct that it increased. Calling it permenant, however, is just ridiculous; because, if it is permenant, why should we get worked up about it. After all how can raising taxes on the wealthy, as you encourage, affect something that is “permanent”?
All your other points are nothing but Democratic talking points and they are either patently wrong, or deliberate misrepresentation of data. For example, the job numbers you quote are from industry surveys. Household surveys shows a tremendous increase in jobs. Do you now think it’s more important to have a job with a huge evil corporation than it is to create a small business on your own? Don’t site data when you hate what feeds the date in first place.
Regarding 9/11: Put down your latest issue of Nation and Z magazine and go read the 9/11 Commission report. That tired trope that Bush was responsible for 9/11 just makes you look silly.
And while you’re at it, Dean, read the Duelfer report, the whole thing, not selectively, which shows that our war on Iraq was justified and that Saddam was simply waiting for a new opportunity. And then perhaps you’ll modify your anti-Bush rhetoric and prove that you have the right to question Michael’s logic, which right now you are doing while maintaining your own positions not only against logic, but against the evidence.
Note 38
Dean is worried about foreign investors pulling out of America’s markets. Where, pray tell will they go? Foreign investors put their money in America because they know that capital (oooh that ugly word) is protected here. There is a reasonably honest court system to settle business disputes. Most business crooks get caught, ususally by the IRS, but caught none the less. There is no dictator, like Saddam, who seized assets or ownnership share of prosperous businesses. One problem that the Middle East has concerning development is that when someone manages to save a little money, they send it abroad because it is safe there.
Where are the foreign investors going to go Dean? China is still a brutally despotic country. Mainly people consider it risky to invest without the guarantee of their home countries. India is coming up on the horizon is Singapore. Still there is no more economically stable and safe place for capital ( shudder) than the United States. So happily for us, foreigners invest in our businesses providing jobs for our people here in America and generating profits (shudder) that can be taxed here in America.
Bill writes: “And while you?re at it, Dean, read the Duelfer report, the whole thing, not selectively, which shows that our war on Iraq was justified and that Saddam was simply waiting for a new opportunity.”
The Duelfer report shows that Saddam’s main concern was with Iran. So undoubtedly our main result has been to make the Iranians safer. Mission accomplished . . . .
Unless you think that we’re going to occupy the country indefinetly, do you think some future Iraqi leader might decide to produce his own chemical or biological weapons? If not, why not?
Also, I think you need to balance the cost of the war with the benefit. So far we’ve removed Saddam, creative a terrorist magnet and massive chaos in a country awash with weapons, exhausted our own military, slowed progress in Afghanistan, alienated many of our traditional allies, and spent tens of billions of dollars with the tab still running.
The whole thing, Jim, not selectively.
Note 38
Talk to a professional psychologist or clinical counselor and they will tell you that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. A President is not an autocrat, he needs the support of his Party to govern the country at a minimum. The Democrat party is more strongly anti-war than pro-war on Iraq. He will have to govern by and through these people. Kerry has run down the military and our intellgence capacity for his entire public life. He doesn’t trust his own country in international affairs. He has stated that he would “reach out to the Islamic world.”
Somehow as a woman, I find the idea of “reaching out” to the Islamic world to be a little worrrisome. Some people have argued that the that most correct interpretation of the OBL’s latest love note, is that he is offering a truce. We give up in Iraq and Afghanistan and let him establish Wahhabi theocracies and we get a pass on terror. I think this is a reasonable interpretation but we will have to wait and see.
Thinking for even and instant that Osama will leave us alone if we let him establish a couple of theocracies is even more a stretch than thinking Dean will be reasonable about Pres. Bush. For Osama the United States is the personification of evil. He might leave us alone for a time, just a Hitler appeared satisfied for awhile after the Rhineland, then the Sudatenland, then Anschluss with Austria. Kerry would buy it and proclaim “Peace in our time” and become an even more infamous appeaser than Neville Chamberlin.
Missourian: Why do you keep repeating the falsehood that John Kerry has “run down the military and our intellgence capacity for his entire public life.” Don’t you know that one of our Ten Commandments prohibits “bearing false witness” against yur neighbor?
When John Kerry testified before Congress as a young man he criticized the decisions of the military brass and civilian leaders responsible for putting soldiers in terrible situations in Vietnam, but he never, ever “ran down” his comrades and fellow soldiers.
What kind of democracy could we have if people were never allowed to criticize the military leadership when it makes bad decisions? Should we just pass a law then making it illegal to ever question the decisions of our military leaders?
If anyone has been “running down” our soldiers in Iraq it has been Republicans trying to defelect criticism from President Bush. Just this week Rudy Giuliani said the failure to the secure 380 tons of explosives at the the Al Qaqaa military depot. “No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough — didn’t they search carefully enough?” Guiliani said on “Today.” http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/edwards.thursday.ap/
Earlier this year Condeleeza Rice has blamed the abuses at Al Ghraib prison, not on the military brass and civilian leaders who issued memoranda calling the constraints of the Geneva convention “antiquated”, but on lower-ranking servicemen, “a few bad apples”. “In a meeting with Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth shortly after the scandal broke, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice argued that the abuses resulted not from the president’s policies in the war on terrorism, but from ‘implementation of policy” by the military.
Military legal affairs expert Phillip Carter writes, “In any war, civilian leaders set strategic aims, and it falls to commanders and planners at successively lower levels of command to refine that guidance into executable orders which can be handed down to subordinates. That process works whether the policy in question is a good one or a bad one. President Bush didn’t order the April 2003 “thunder run” into Baghdad; he ordered Tommy Franks to win the war and the Third Infantry Division’s leaders figured out how to make it happen. Likewise, no order was given to shove light sticks into the rectums of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Nevertheless, the road to the abuses began with flawed administration policies that exalted expediency and necessity over the rule of law, eviscerated the military’s institutional constraints on the treatment of prisoners, commenced combat with insufficient planning, preparation and troop strength, and thereby set the conditions for the abuses that would later take place. ” http://www.intel-dump.com/archives/archive_2004_10_28.shtml#1099084045
Note 48
I understand your point and agree it with. The interpretation which I reported about in my note comes from Belmont Club. I agree that OBL and friends need a sustained and overwhelming response to their violence against our country.
I recently read an article in the Jerusalem post which quoted a book written by the son of the Ayatollah Khomeini. He was an adult and serving as an aide to his father during the Iranian hostage crisis. According to the son, the Ayatollah was not the source of the original idea to kidnap the American diplomats, the small but active Leftists parties were. Again, according to the son, the Ayatollah expected “thunder and lightning” from the United States. What the Ayatollah got was a semi-apology for unspecified American sins and a request from “one believer in God to another” to release the diplomats on humanitarian grounds. This is from Brezinski (spelling) and Carter. (!!!?##?!!) We have spent the last 30 years paying for this. Not long into the crisis, Carter announced that the United States would not take military action, to the great relief of the Iranians. This is like Kerry suggesting that we should stop work on bunker busters in order to “set a good example.” The rest of the world should be worried and uncertain if we were developing bunker busters. Kerry thinks that the Iranian mullahs would be inspired by a good example as they create their own nuclear armanents. (!!!$%%!!)
Barbarians living on the edges of great powers have always periodically tested the willingness of the great power to defend its borders. When those barbarians find a weakness they grab territory or advantage and squeal with delight as they make a fool of the great power. Carter still have no shame and has made no public acknowlegement of the disastrous effects of his foreign policy for America and the world which has had to suffer this wave of terrorism.
In other words, Dr. Kushiner, it doesn’t matter how corrupt, incompetent or destructive a candidate is, as long he is against abortion, you’re voting for him.
Read it again Dean. Dr. Kushiner says that values have hierarchy. He is not writing to your intense dislike of Bush.
For all the rhetoric about the “abortion holocaust,” it doesn’t seem to me that Christians really believe that. If I really thought that over a million *persons* were literally being murdered every year, I’d do everything I could to stop it. Frankly, anyone who truly believes that should be out bombing abortion clinics. Screw the culture war, anyone who actually thinks that over a million people in the U.S. are being murdered by abortion should be out making real war. You should be out blowing up clinics and shooting down anyone who participates in abortion, in the same way that one would have been justified in using violence to stop the murders at Auschwitz. If I thought even *one* innocent person was going to be executed for no reason at city hall today, I’d skip work and try to prevent that.
Looked at another way, if Saddam Hussein killed a million people during his time in power, that’s really nothing compared to the million people killed by abortion every year in the U.S. Thus, going by the logic that the U.S. invaded Iraq to “confront evil,” Saddam Hussein would ironically have been justified in invading and occupying the United States if he did it with the intention of eliminating abortion. So what if Saddam Hussein is a dictator? How can you “balance” democracy over the ruthless, murderous holocaust of a million a year? So what if Saddam has rape rooms? How can you balance a few thousand rapes against a million murders? So what if Saddam murdered a million people over twenty years when we do it every year!
Thus, under the logic of “confronting evil,” many of the countries in the world would be justified in invading and occupying the U.S. as long as they did it to stop abortion. In other words, if you truly think that over a million people in the U.S. are being murdered every year, that one issue would automatically outweigh virtually every other issue. Forget democracy, forget economics, forget everything else.
Since almost none of the opponents of abortion are out bombing clinics or arranging for foreign invasions, I conclude that they fail to perceive the logic of their own rhetoric. And I think what’s really happening is that they truly don’t even believe the rhetoric.
Let me give you an example. I mentioned this example a few weeks ago, and exactly no one responded to it. You are a fireman, called to the scene of a raging fire in a fertility clinic. As you enter the lab you see a fertility technician barely conscious on the floor next to a small freezer containing 100 frozen embryos. In seconds the room will be engulfed in flame. You can either
a) rescue the technician and let the embryos be destroyed or
b) rescue the freezer with 100 embryos and let the technician burn to death.
Whom do you rescue, and why?
Note 3
The explanation is that as Stalin said “one murder is a tragedy and a million murders is a statistic.”
You can resolve the embryos/technician fairly easily. The embryos would probably be damaged by their rescue mooting the issue. We get your point. People would tend to value the life of the technician over the embryos. This is because someone would probably mourn severely if the technician died. People would probably not mourn as intensely over the embryos, but they might if they were infertile couples looking to conceive.
This issue rarely arises. The common case is a healthy young woman aborting a foetus for convenience while millions of prospective adoptive parents wait for a baby.
Missourian writes: “People would tend to value the life of the technician over the embryos. This is because someone would probably mourn severely if the technician died. People would probably not mourn as intensely over the embryos, but they might if they were infertile couples looking to conceive.”
I don’t mean to sound heartless, but I think the reason that the technician would be rescued, the reason that the technician would be mourned more, the reason why the life of the technician would be valued over that of the embryos, is because people, even Christians, simply do not value embryonic life as much as post-birth life. That doesn’t mean that embryonic life is trivial. It simply means that in many moral situations the lives of people already born trump the lives of embryos.
This is why many Christians do not feel that abortion is the ultimate issue when making political decisions, but rather that it is an issue that has to be balanced with many other issues. This may elicit the argument “how can you balance the murder of a million unborn with [fill in the blank].” But I can guarantee you that 99.99% of the people would rescue the technician rather than the embryos, even were there 1,000 or 10,000 embryos that could be saved.
Dean,
re: “In other words, Dr. Kushiner, it doesn?t matter how corrupt, incompetent or destructive a candidate is, as long he is against abortion, you?re voting for him.”
Corrupt? Incompetent? Destructive? If this is how “fair and objective” you are in regards to President Bush (unless you will now assume you were only talking hypothetically) then truth and reality are not a priority for you. I hope you were only talking in theory and creating one of those hypotheticals “academics” like to dream up to obfuscate the real issues and draw attention to a potential “dilemma” that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Christian,
Dean was not making an acedemic hypothetcial. For him, President Bush is far worse than the person described by the realively mild pejortives he used in the post you question.
Jim, the question you raise and the challenge you make are both excellent. You are correct that those who oppose abortion (Christian or not) ought to take more forceful action on behalf of the unborn children. However, the equivalence you draw between the war in Iraq and action against abortion does not hold up. The war in Iraq is the action of the state taken with the approval of our elected representatives. Violent action against abortion providers would be an individual action taken in opposition to law. States have the right, legally and morally, to take life both to punish and to protect. Individuals do not have that right except in exceptional circumstances. Most believe that a Christian never has the right to perpetrate violence individually to punish only to protect.
Dietrich Bonhoffer made the decision that Hitler was so evil AND the state was non-functional in controlling that evil that to participate in killing Hitler was acceptable. He and his co-conspirators were unsuccessful and paid with their lives. With abortion that question perhaps becomes whether or not the inability and unwillingness of the state to protect children from abortion is sufficient to over-ride the prohibition against individual violence. Some people have made the decision that violence is justified, most have not. The majority of those who either use or advocate violence of which I am aware have not made the decision based on the types of criteria I am discussing. They are simply angry, violent people and the abortion component gives them an excuse to kill.
Before acting in a violent way, one must also decide the extent of the evil. There is a big difference between being evil and participating in evil. Bonhoffer’s target was Hitler, not all Nazis. Who, among the abortionists, would qualify as a Hitler? How, as individuals, are we to make those judgements? Conversion does take place even among those who seem most committed to performing abortions.
Given the state of persecution against those who actively oppose abortion (the RICO suit against Operation Rescue, the arrests near abortion clinics of those who are simply praying), unless one is single or has a family commitment to accepting the consequences of such persecution, direct action becomes a difficult decision. Nevertheless, if we expect and want change, someone is going to have to do it. That does not mean that violent opposition is the only or best course. Martin Luther King and Ghandi achieved more social change with their non-violent approach than their violent counterparts. They put their lives on the line and witnessed to the conscience of each and everyone.
The “ethical dilemma” you raise, is another one of those false and misleading hypotheses that has little practical value. Nevertheless,you may be correct that despite our opposition to abortion, we have fallen prey to the mind of the world that life is not intrinsically and equally valuable. Perhaps on some level we refuse direct action because we really don’t believe that the embryos and unborn children are really people or are less of a person than we are. Maybe we are just too selfish and afraid. Such a state does not in anyway mean that the principal that we assert is incorrect. It simply means that we have to do more to witness to the truth.
Note 5
Jim, both of us seem to be talking about emotion. Emotion is not always a good guide to what is moral.
I must admit I am flumoxed by this “logic” that says, “You think abortion is murder and evil and you think that this tyrant is engaged in murder and evil. And you think that we must send in the 82nd Airborne in order to destroy the regime of this murderous and evil tyrant. Therefore you must believe that we should murder abortionists and bomb abortion clinics.”
On the other hand, Jim makes a very fine, salon style, academic debating point. So let us sit back, sip our wine, think about Jim’s point while we also ponder the simple bumpkins trying to live in what they call the “real” world. And on Sunday, in the midst of our prayers, we shall say a special one for the enlightenment of these silly little people who ingorantly see inaction and indecision in our ability to comprehend nuance and complexity.
How can you say you are voting for George W. Bush because he respects the sanctity if human life and then ignore the massive loss of innocent civian live in Iraq resulting from his decision to launch an unnecessary war? George Warmonger Bush has the blood of 100,000 dead civilians on his hands.
From the Financial Times: October 28, 2004 – “Death toll of Iraqi civilians tops 100,000, study says” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1333734,00.html
“At least 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the allied invasion of Iraq in March last year, according to a study by public health experts published today.
The risk of dying prematurely has risen by 250 per cent for ordinary Iraqi people since Saddam Hussein was toppled, the US and Iraqi scientists estimate, while the risk of dying violently is 58 times higher.
Most of the victims of violence are women and children killed by allied airstrikes, said the online report in the Lancet medical journal. It called for changes in coalition military tactics to cut the death toll.”
Note 3. Different evils are fought in different ways. Real world distinctions apply that cannot be subsumed to a single definition of the term.
Note 11: Let’s make sure these numbers are accurate before we jump to conclusions.
I must confess that I haven’t taken the time to fully read over this website, though a cursory glance reveals numbers far more conservative than those posted in the Times article. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
The methodology employed by IraqBodyCount only looks at deaths reported publically by major news sources, so it would not include those deaths that are not reported. As result it would undercount the actual number of deaths. The Lancet study, by contrast, based it’s estimate on an extrapolation from a sample gathered in interviews with hospitals, doctors and government officials, so I would expect there to be some margin of error and a possible over-estimate.
However, we should not allow ourselves to get so lost in the details that we miss the major point. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians are dead, and milions of Iraqis are now at greater of violence, because of the unproked and unnecessary war unleashed by George W. Bush.
Even if one supports the argument that invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, our planning for the post-war period was so haphazard and misconceived that many thousands of additional deaths have occurred due to to the instability and violence we allowed to develop. The minute we stated our intention to depose Saddam Hussein the safety and security of the Iraqi became our responsibility, (Pottery-Barn Rule) and we have failed miserably.
Dean, anyone who has been on this blog for any length of time knows that war is not the real issue for you–George Bush is. For you, our President is an immoral, corrupt, incompetent, worthless, dangerous and illegitimate President with no redeeming value at all. He is probably demonic and ought to be tried in The Hague for war crimes. We also know that no evidence or logic to the contrary will alter your opinion in the slightest. Your maniacal, irrational opposition to the man and your willingness to immediately accept the veracity of any bad thing you hear about him make your posts of little value. Your bias is so extreme and obsessive that any evidence you have to support your case is too questionable to even be considered. You do yourself and your causes a great disservice by your hysteria.
So I guess you don’t want to hear my joke?
Question: What is the difference between the Vietnam war and the Iraq war?
Answer: George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam war.
(snare drum please)
John Kerry had a plan too, it’s just that Kerry’s didn’t work.
On a more serious note, as commander in chief one should not plan “how to get out of a war”. The only effective way to get out of a war is to win it.
During the Vietnam days, everybody I knew had a plan to get out of the war. One of the people in my dorm who drew #1 in the lottery didn’t go because he was black and got admitted to medical school. A good friend of mine, a die hard Democrat, was planning to ramp up his blood pressure when he went to take a physical–he didn’t have to because he blew out his knee in a intramural basketball game instead. I didn’t have to plan since I had a high draft number plus a medical deferment. I believe that President Bush also had a high draft number and actually placed himself at greater risk of going to Vietnam by his enlistment in the Air Guard than if he had not enlisted. John Kerry enlisted only when it became clear he was going to be drafted–a wise and prudent choice.
Note 17
Dean,
So you think flying fighter jets is an easy job? Sure…
Michael: I can’t wait until this election is over and we can discuss less rancorous topics. Pray for a decisive outcome on Tuesday, one way or the other.
Michael writes: “You are correct that those who oppose abortion (Christian or not) ought to take more forceful action on behalf of the unborn children.”
What I’m saying is that if one is going to call abortion “murder of a person” and a “holocaust,” then certain actions morally and logically follow from that. As I said, if someone really believed that about abortion, then they should be bombing clinics and shooting their staff, or at the very least massing around the clinics so as to shut them down. While it is true that there is no abortion “Hitler” there are certainly a limited number of providers. It doesn’t make any sense to use the rhetoric of murder and holocaust and then not act according to that.
But Christians rarely take forceful action to prevent this “holocaust.” This tells me that they really don’t believe that abortion is murder and holocaust. It’s like talking to a guy who says that exercise is absolutely the most important thing you can do, and then you find out that he rarely exercises. Thus his belief in the goodnes of exercise is sentimental and abstract rather than operative and concrete. We would be justified in concluding that he really didn’t believe in the importance of exercise, his claims notwithstanding.
Likewise, it is my belief that most people who say that abortion is murder and a holocaust really don’t believe that, because they don’t act like they believe it. If we thought that one innocent person was going be shot today for no reason we’d all be out in the streets protesting and trying to prevent it. But when it comes to the alleged vast nationwide “murderous holocaust” of abortion killing 3,000 persons every day, people post to a blog and vote in November.
Rhetoric is a tool. In the case under discussion the rhetoric of murder and holocaust is used as a litmus test to separate the sheep from the goats, and to manipulate people into voting a certain way, even as the opponents of abortion refrain from any other actions that would indicate that they really believed it were a literal holocaust. In other words, in daily life they act like it’s a moral issue alongside of other moral issues, but when it comes to politics it’s a holocaust. I don’t buy it.
Note 19: Dean, it’s called a rim shot, not a snare drum, although it is performed on a snare drum. As employed by comedians, it’s intended to startle the audience into a laugh, especially if the joke is stupid and weak, like yours.
Note 22. Jim, think this through. Real life distinctions cannot be subsumed to a demand for rhetorical uniformity. The language used against abortion was also used against slavery in both England and America. America had a civil war, England did not. Slavery was evil in both, and a holocaust of sorts (limited genocide might be more accurate). Demanding conformity to singular rhetorical definition, especially when those terms are conditioned by other events (holocaust and the Final Solution for example) does not reflect how language functions in real life thus making the demand unreasonable.
Note 17. Dean, you don’t understand Viet Nam, and you don’t understand the seriousness and severity of the terrorist threat. Read the transcript of Bin Laden’s latest statement. Thinks he wants a Bush win? I don’t.
Did you watch Nightline tonight? The consensus was that Bin Ladin definetly wants a Bush win because Bush is perceived so negatively in the Islamic world that he serves as a recruitment tool for Al Qaeda.
How did you feel seeing the mass murderer who killed 3,000 Americans, still roaming free, mocking our President and delivering his fair warning that another attack may be coming? Did you wish, as I did, that the bulk of our resources had not been diverted from his securing his capture so they could be poured into the costly and deadly quagmire in Iraq instead?
Costly and deadly quagmire? What did I say about not understanding Viet Nam or Iraq?
If Kerry is elected he will take his crack foreign policy team starting with Joseph Biden as Secretary of State (Joseph Biden?) and promptly look for ways to -negotiate! Globalist pacifists never understand the nature of tyrannical threat until too late — and not even then sometimes.
I’m not really sure how you can condemn the military action on one hand, and then condemn the president for not being aggresive enough on the other. I don’t hear ideas why Kerry would be a better president but only how much you dislike Bush. Most of Kerry’s support comes from animus towards Bush rather than any qualifications Kerry might hold, IMO.
No one really trusts a Kerry presidency in wartime, not enough to make a difference anyway, and thus Bin Laden’s threat will end up helping Bush. Bin Laden miscalculated. America is not Spain.
From Kerry’s comments, it seems apparent that he will maintain an offensive stance in rooting out terrorists. The only disagreement he has made with the Afghanistan conflict is that we didn’t do enough to get bin Laden in the first place, not that we didn’t negotiate with the Taliban. I don’t think he would be “soft” in dealing with al-Qaida or other such groups.
Has Bush been too much of a pacifist for not dealing militarily with North Korea, Syria or Iran, all of which have made their nuclear ambitions clear? Is he “negotiating” with terrorists for not having used US military might? Why is it that when Bush neglects to act with bombs he is showing “restraint” while Kerry is just “pacifying” our enemies? This is a double standard, methinks.
Kerry’s rhetoric and record don’t match. He’s been on the hard left since his youth, but now portrays himself to the right of George Bush on terrorism. I don’t think many people believe it, even those who will vote for him.
Korea and Iran, have not invaded their neighbors. Syria has (Lebanon) but the strategic implications are different.
Bush is not a “pacifist” and neither is Kerry. “Restraint” is often a code word for different policies. Bush and Kerry have very different views of America’s role and responsibility in the world (Kerry is the globalist), so depending on whether the left or right is using the term determines what meaning should be ascribed. Both can be reluctant to use military force (the general meaning of “restraint”), but their reluctance can be derived from different starting points and thus portend different conclusions.
James, you wrote, “From Kerry’s comments, it seems apparent that he will maintain an offensive stance in rooting out terrorists.” But it’s not Kerry’s comments that matter. We already know he will say anything to get elected, as his foolish insistence that Bush personally let terrorists steal explosives in Iraq, even after the NYT story has been discredited, proves. It’s his record that matters, his consistent support (amidst frequent absenteeism from Senate votes) for weakening this country diplomatically and militarily, and his opposition to any kind of military action undertaken to support this country’s security, especially under Reagan. If he is elected to be Commander-in-Chief, he will fail to protect this country. “By their deeds shall you know them.”
Bush’s course with North Korea, Syria, and Iran has been not one of pacifism, but of tough diplomatic dealing. By refusing to appease North Korea, for instance, as Jimmy “Father of the North Korean Nuclear Program” Carter and Bill Clinton did, and as Kerry has announced in detail that he will (plus he wants to sell nuclear fuel to Iran!), he has put these countries on notice that America will no longer assist in its own destruction. Your drawing of a double standard is a false one which takes into account only the surface of the two candidates’ campaign rhetoric. You are comparing an apple to a rotten banana.
I don’t think Kerry is a pacifist. In reality, he is more of an isolationist. He wants the U.N. to handle everything and keep the U.S. out of it unless absolutely necessary and we are then drafted by the rest of the world to solve the problem,i.e., the global test. Because of his experience in VietNam which IMO genuinely seared him, he is afraid of any use of American power that is perceived as unilateral as Viet Nam was. He has not been able to breakout of the mental and emotional handcuffs into which he placed himself by his reaction to the Viet Nam experience. He is afraid of and deeply distrustful of American power. As a result, IMO Kerry and his administration will not act decisively when it is called for and tend to over-react in other situations. Of course, no President is free to make a complete break from past administrations. The exigencies of the office will temper to some extent what Kerry can do.
Bush’s commitment to spreading freedom scares me a little, it would be real easy for that to get out of hand.
We must be careful not to fall into the hyperbolic rhetoric of election time thinking that either side is describing the situation as it really is. Is Iraq as good as Bush tells us it is, no. Is it as bad as Kerry tells us it is, no.
Is the world going to come to an end if Kerry wins, no. In fact not much will change. Nader is correct on one point. The reason the election is so close is that there is not much of a perceived difference between the two major parties. Our system makes it really difficult for a third party to make headway or to effectively challenge the prevailing political orthodoxy. If Colorado’s proposed experiment with proportionate assignment of electoral votes works and catches on, we will have a mass of third parties to contend with, and probably the House of Representative deciding more than a few Presidential elections.
While it may seem a technical point, we don’t actually vote for Kerry or Bush, we vote for electors from our state that then cast their vote for President. The electors are not bound to vote for a particular candidate. They can vote for anyone they please. There is one Republican elector out there who has publically stated he will not vote for Bush, he will vote for another Republican other than Bush. Choose your House candidates wisely. If you want Bush to win, don’t split your ticket on this one. If you want Kerry to win, vote for the Democrat House candidate. MSNBC had a report last night that calculated there are 33 probable ways in which the election can end in a tie. Factor in the lawyers for both sides running around in the weeds and the chances of a clear decisive victory on November 2 for either candidate are not good. If that happens, then we are most vulnerable then to a terror attack.
Given the wide confidence edge that Bush holds in the handling of the war on terror (53% to 37%) any serious terror threat helps Bush.
Good points Michael although I think you underestimate the real differences between a Kerry and Bush administration. Events force these differences I think so during times of relative calm it may not matter much but in times of crisis it matters a great deal. We live with whatever outcome happens on Nov. 2 of course.
BTW, Nader, although a charter member of the hard left, made tons of cash in the stock market during the boom. He’s a economic nationalist by day and a closet capitalist by night. It’s a bit like Kerry telling us taxes should be raised while Teresa paid only 12% on her income.
Dean,
re:”How did you feel seeing the mass murderer who killed 3,000 Americans, still roaming free, mocking our President and delivering his fair warning that another attack may be coming? Did you wish, as I did, that the bulk of our resources had not been diverted from his securing his capture so they could be poured into the costly and deadly quagmire in Iraq instead?”
And you think a Kerry will have the necessary guts, resolve, passion, and integrity to get Osama. The same Kerry that voted against the liberation of Kuwait, voted against a strong defense budget, flip-flops all over the place on fighting terrorism, isn’t sure on whether the US should have deposed Saddam, and voted against $87 billion to fund and support our military. Wake up man! Smell the reality!
Christian–see note 16 re Dean and Bush.
Fr. Hans,
You are probably correct that the differences will be greater than I assumed in #31. I’m just trying to be an optimist. Christian more accurately describes Kerry’s approach. My biggest concern is that Kerry to an even greater extent than Bill Clinton will tilt toward Islam in our foreign policy as a way of trying to appease the terroists. Trying to work through the UN will have that effect in and of itself. I really do think Kerry is afraid of and conflicted about the power this country has which is far different than wanting to emphasize diplomacy over military force. I think he honestly feels that no one country should have as much power as we do which leads him to try and weaken this country when he can. Yet, we have been attacked and face a genuine threat. IMO, some of his flip/flops come from that point of conflict, not necessarily solely from political expediency. Do we really want a President that is afraid?
Note 35
Yes, I would say that Kerry is very ambiguous about American power. In an interview circa 1971 he was quoted as saying that if the United States left South Viet Nam the people there would be able to choose their own government? Could he have really thought that the North Vietnamese solidly supplied by China and Russia would not press forward to crush the Army of South Viet Nam? Could he really have thought that Ho Chi Minh would institute free and fair elections giving non-Communists a chance at office? What was he thinking?
Beats me. Sometimes I run into Baby Boomers who preen when they describe themselves as having participated in demonstrations which ended the Viet Nam war. I love to ask them if, as Democrats, they felt compelled to oppose a War begun by John F. Kennedy and prosecuted by Lyndon Johnson. Somehow these people like to think of Viet Nam as Nixon’s war, what a joke. I believe Eisenhower had a change to intervene in Viet Nam and to his credit, he declined. However, the question I most enjoy asking is this: Are you content with the result? Did you anticipate a different result? If so what? Are you happy that the entire Vietnamese population lives under one of the most severe Communitst regimes in the world?
Why was opposing the War more moral than supporting it? Tell me again. Something about “War is not good for children and other living things.” Did anyone tell Ho Chi Minh that? Apparently not. What are concentration camps good for? Are concentration camps good for children and other living things? I would love to meet up with Peter, Paul and Mary someday. Great music to march to the re-education camp. Who did Peter, Paul and Mary think was fighting for “freedom and justice?” Hmmmm. Wonder. I suppose they would state that they only intended to support the domestic civil rights crusade led by Martin Luther King. But, I know different, they appeared at many specific anti-War rallies. Sigh. We Boomers never stop fighting that War.
Note 37
I have described myself as an “experiential Christian.” I live my life, then, when I compare the course of my life with what the Scriptures say about living, I can only conclude that the Scriptures are right. Beyond that I hand the baton to others. I don’t pretend to truly understand many of the big questions raised by belief in Christ. I just do because He has been gracious enough to reveal himself to me. At which point you remind me “to she who has been given much, much is expected.”
On a very simplistic level, if a Christian votes for a pro-abortion candidate because he thinks that candidate is far better than the alternative on issues other than abortion, isn’t that Christian making a deal with the Devil. Hmmm,,, I will go along with your pro-abortion policies for a while because I want a better foreign policy. I am not sure that works. If we have yet another four years of pro-abortion administration we will have terrible policies instituted in scientific research and terrible judges nominated to the life-long federal bench (shudder.”)
The damage could be almost beyond repair. Once the voting public feels that it acquires a concrete benefit from growing and harvesting embryos if will be difficult to persuade them to give it up. Again, embryos don’t vote and have no money. They will lose the battle.
You seem to forget that while America may have “champagne” dreams of global military domination, our growing budget deficits mean that we be doing it on a “six pack of Budweiser” budget. Nearly three quarters of the US budget deficit is currently financed by foreign investors. As US tax revenue continues to be reduced by fiscally irresponsible tax cuts, the size of deficit as a percentage of GDP will continue to grow, eventually reaching a point where the US government will not be considered very credit-worthy anymore.
Once the foreign investors begin to pull back that means that the funding for the US federal deficit will have to come from domestic credit sources. This will push US interest rates sharply higher. Higher interest rates will slow business investment and consumer spending, and could push many families already carrying heavy debt loads into bankruptcy. The resulting recession will trim tax revenue even further.
When you look at the fiscal recklessness and economic danger that accompanies Bush’s grandiose and aggressive unilateralist foreign policy, Kerry’s multi-lateral approach begins to make sense. We need to to return to a foreign policy approach of working together with our allies within established structures of international cooperation. This will allow us to share the economic burden of maintaining international security, while lending greater international legitimacy to our actions.
Re: “The consensus was that Bin Ladin definetly wants a Bush win because Bush is perceived so negatively in the Islamic world that he serves as a recruitment tool for Al Qaeda.” – Mansoor Ijaz, FNC contributor, stated, in an interview yesterday with Greta Van Sustern, that a Kerry election would also benefit Islamofascist terrorist recruitment, because Kerry would take a “maintain the status quo” UN-European appeasement approach (which includes, according to Kerry advisor Richard Holbrooke, “working with moderate Arab states [and] put more pressure on Israel”) that would tell the terrorists that what they were doing was working.
So which is it? Recall that the terrorists response to Spanish withdrawal from Iraq was to threaten more terrorism in Spain.
Re: Kerry being seared by his experience in Vietnam – on what do you base this assertion? Kerry opposed the Vietnam war before he signed up, he opposed to it when he was there and he opposed it when he came back. The only thing about Vietnam, as far as I know, that was, according to Kerry himself, “seared” into his memory was something he never did, which was make a trip into Cambodia with CIA agents. The only thing serving in Vietnam did was give him a chip to play for his future life in politics. How could anyone who has images of Vietnam “seared” into his memory possibly support a Vietnam draft dodger for president, and then ask that same draft-dodging president to campaign for him?
Michael: You know I respect you as a good and intelligent person whose views on spirituality in particular have provided me with many insights. However, I confess that I do not understand the logical thought process that enables you to overlook the negative consequences of so many of Mr. Bush’s questionable decisions.
President Bush has performed his job poorly, and I believe this to be an objective, not a subjective, assessment. Despite repeated warning of an impending terrorist attack, he did nothing to strengthen America’s defenses before September 11th. He turned a healthy budget surplus into permanent structural budget deficits that threaten our economy. He failed to capture Bin Ladin when we had him cornered at Tora Boara. He launched an unprovoked war against Iraq and provided justifications for that war that proved to be completely false. He mismananged the occupation of Iraq allowing that country to slip into anarchy, chaos and instability that is now proving difficult to reverse. Under his watch America will have lost more jobs than it has created for the first time since the Great Depression. He did nothing to develop alternative sources of energy in the face of rising oil prices. He has allowed greater numbers of Americans to lose their health insurance coverage and fall below the poverty level.
How do you do it? How do you ignore all of the above knowing that in the private sector a chief executive with such an abysmal record would be fired without a second thought?
On this idea that Kerry would “maintain an offensive stance in rooting out terrorists”, oh really? It seems that John Kerry can truly be all things for all people (which is easy to do when your only single operating principle is doing whatever it takes to maintain a healthy political career). For evidence of this take a look at what Kerry actually says (these are quotes from the first debate):
On staying in Iraq:
“I’m not talking about leaving. I’m talking about winning.”
“Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we’re there. We have to succeed. We can’t leave a failed Iraq.”
On leaving Iraq:
“And our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there …”
“I believe that when you know something’s going wrong, you make it right. That’s what I learned in Vietnam.”
[Dennis Prager from the article linked above comments:] What was it that John Kerry “learned in Vietnam?” To leave a war he regarded as a mistake.
On America acting alone:
“I’ll never give a veto to any country over our security.”
On America acting only with world support or within an alliance:
“But if and when you do it (act alone), Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test …”
On the war being a mistake:
“This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment.”
“The president made a mistake in invading Iraq.”
“The war is a mistake.”
On the war being important enough to have to win:
“I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that.”
After hearing Kerry call the war a mistake, the moderator Jim Lehrer asked the logical question: “Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?
John Kerry’s answer: “No, and they don’t have to, providing we have the leadership that I’m offering.”
[Prager comments:]Now what does that response, arguably the most important thing the senator said in the debate, mean? Does it mean that American soldiers won’t die for what John Kerry continually labels a mistake because he will prosecute the war more effectively? Or does it mean that Americans won’t die for this mistaken war because he will leave Iraq and then there will be no mistake to die for?
Me: And if you push all this aside and say, “Yeah, but this is all about Iraq and Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism” then your not really paying attention.
Dean, the only thing you are half correct on is the budget deficit, you are correct that it increased. Calling it permenant, however, is just ridiculous; because, if it is permenant, why should we get worked up about it. After all how can raising taxes on the wealthy, as you encourage, affect something that is “permanent”?
All your other points are nothing but Democratic talking points and they are either patently wrong, or deliberate misrepresentation of data. For example, the job numbers you quote are from industry surveys. Household surveys shows a tremendous increase in jobs. Do you now think it’s more important to have a job with a huge evil corporation than it is to create a small business on your own? Don’t site data when you hate what feeds the date in first place.
Regarding 9/11: Put down your latest issue of Nation and Z magazine and go read the 9/11 Commission report. That tired trope that Bush was responsible for 9/11 just makes you look silly.
And while you’re at it, Dean, read the Duelfer report, the whole thing, not selectively, which shows that our war on Iraq was justified and that Saddam was simply waiting for a new opportunity. And then perhaps you’ll modify your anti-Bush rhetoric and prove that you have the right to question Michael’s logic, which right now you are doing while maintaining your own positions not only against logic, but against the evidence.
Note 38
Dean is worried about foreign investors pulling out of America’s markets. Where, pray tell will they go? Foreign investors put their money in America because they know that capital (oooh that ugly word) is protected here. There is a reasonably honest court system to settle business disputes. Most business crooks get caught, ususally by the IRS, but caught none the less. There is no dictator, like Saddam, who seized assets or ownnership share of prosperous businesses. One problem that the Middle East has concerning development is that when someone manages to save a little money, they send it abroad because it is safe there.
Where are the foreign investors going to go Dean? China is still a brutally despotic country. Mainly people consider it risky to invest without the guarantee of their home countries. India is coming up on the horizon is Singapore. Still there is no more economically stable and safe place for capital ( shudder) than the United States. So happily for us, foreigners invest in our businesses providing jobs for our people here in America and generating profits (shudder) that can be taxed here in America.
Bill writes: “And while you?re at it, Dean, read the Duelfer report, the whole thing, not selectively, which shows that our war on Iraq was justified and that Saddam was simply waiting for a new opportunity.”
The Duelfer report shows that Saddam’s main concern was with Iran. So undoubtedly our main result has been to make the Iranians safer. Mission accomplished . . . .
Unless you think that we’re going to occupy the country indefinetly, do you think some future Iraqi leader might decide to produce his own chemical or biological weapons? If not, why not?
Also, I think you need to balance the cost of the war with the benefit. So far we’ve removed Saddam, creative a terrorist magnet and massive chaos in a country awash with weapons, exhausted our own military, slowed progress in Afghanistan, alienated many of our traditional allies, and spent tens of billions of dollars with the tab still running.
The whole thing, Jim, not selectively.
Note 38
Talk to a professional psychologist or clinical counselor and they will tell you that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. A President is not an autocrat, he needs the support of his Party to govern the country at a minimum. The Democrat party is more strongly anti-war than pro-war on Iraq. He will have to govern by and through these people. Kerry has run down the military and our intellgence capacity for his entire public life. He doesn’t trust his own country in international affairs. He has stated that he would “reach out to the Islamic world.”
Somehow as a woman, I find the idea of “reaching out” to the Islamic world to be a little worrrisome. Some people have argued that the that most correct interpretation of the OBL’s latest love note, is that he is offering a truce. We give up in Iraq and Afghanistan and let him establish Wahhabi theocracies and we get a pass on terror. I think this is a reasonable interpretation but we will have to wait and see.
Thinking for even and instant that Osama will leave us alone if we let him establish a couple of theocracies is even more a stretch than thinking Dean will be reasonable about Pres. Bush. For Osama the United States is the personification of evil. He might leave us alone for a time, just a Hitler appeared satisfied for awhile after the Rhineland, then the Sudatenland, then Anschluss with Austria. Kerry would buy it and proclaim “Peace in our time” and become an even more infamous appeaser than Neville Chamberlin.
Missourian: Why do you keep repeating the falsehood that John Kerry has “run down the military and our intellgence capacity for his entire public life.” Don’t you know that one of our Ten Commandments prohibits “bearing false witness” against yur neighbor?
When John Kerry testified before Congress as a young man he criticized the decisions of the military brass and civilian leaders responsible for putting soldiers in terrible situations in Vietnam, but he never, ever “ran down” his comrades and fellow soldiers.
What kind of democracy could we have if people were never allowed to criticize the military leadership when it makes bad decisions? Should we just pass a law then making it illegal to ever question the decisions of our military leaders?
If anyone has been “running down” our soldiers in Iraq it has been Republicans trying to defelect criticism from President Bush. Just this week Rudy Giuliani said the failure to the secure 380 tons of explosives at the the Al Qaqaa military depot. “No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough — didn’t they search carefully enough?” Guiliani said on “Today.” http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/edwards.thursday.ap/
Earlier this year Condeleeza Rice has blamed the abuses at Al Ghraib prison, not on the military brass and civilian leaders who issued memoranda calling the constraints of the Geneva convention “antiquated”, but on lower-ranking servicemen, “a few bad apples”. “In a meeting with Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth shortly after the scandal broke, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice argued that the abuses resulted not from the president’s policies in the war on terrorism, but from ‘implementation of policy” by the military.
Military legal affairs expert Phillip Carter writes, “In any war, civilian leaders set strategic aims, and it falls to commanders and planners at successively lower levels of command to refine that guidance into executable orders which can be handed down to subordinates. That process works whether the policy in question is a good one or a bad one. President Bush didn’t order the April 2003 “thunder run” into Baghdad; he ordered Tommy Franks to win the war and the Third Infantry Division’s leaders figured out how to make it happen. Likewise, no order was given to shove light sticks into the rectums of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Nevertheless, the road to the abuses began with flawed administration policies that exalted expediency and necessity over the rule of law, eviscerated the military’s institutional constraints on the treatment of prisoners, commenced combat with insufficient planning, preparation and troop strength, and thereby set the conditions for the abuses that would later take place. ”
http://www.intel-dump.com/archives/archive_2004_10_28.shtml#1099084045
Note 48
I understand your point and agree it with. The interpretation which I reported about in my note comes from Belmont Club. I agree that OBL and friends need a sustained and overwhelming response to their violence against our country.
I recently read an article in the Jerusalem post which quoted a book written by the son of the Ayatollah Khomeini. He was an adult and serving as an aide to his father during the Iranian hostage crisis. According to the son, the Ayatollah was not the source of the original idea to kidnap the American diplomats, the small but active Leftists parties were. Again, according to the son, the Ayatollah expected “thunder and lightning” from the United States. What the Ayatollah got was a semi-apology for unspecified American sins and a request from “one believer in God to another” to release the diplomats on humanitarian grounds. This is from Brezinski (spelling) and Carter. (!!!?##?!!) We have spent the last 30 years paying for this. Not long into the crisis, Carter announced that the United States would not take military action, to the great relief of the Iranians. This is like Kerry suggesting that we should stop work on bunker busters in order to “set a good example.” The rest of the world should be worried and uncertain if we were developing bunker busters. Kerry thinks that the Iranian mullahs would be inspired by a good example as they create their own nuclear armanents. (!!!$%%!!)
Barbarians living on the edges of great powers have always periodically tested the willingness of the great power to defend its borders. When those barbarians find a weakness they grab territory or advantage and squeal with delight as they make a fool of the great power. Carter still have no shame and has made no public acknowlegement of the disastrous effects of his foreign policy for America and the world which has had to suffer this wave of terrorism.