--- Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From the Wall Street Journal editorial page: > <<http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004435>> > > The Campaign of Hate and Fear > Some of my fellow Democrats are unpatriotic. > BY ORSON SCOTT CARD <much snippage on my part throughout>
> But then I watch the steady campaign of the national > news media to try to > win this for the Democrats, and I wonder. Could this > insane, > self-destructive, extremist-dominated party actually > win the presidency? It > might--because the media are trying as hard as they > can to pound home the > message that the Bush presidency is a failure--even > though by every rational measure it is not. I wasn't aware that public health is not among the "rational measures" of an administration's success. Since I have posted & cited re: most of these particular issues, I will only list a few here: air pollution -> heart disease, lung disease & increased mortality AIDS -> preventive information withheld, funding of prevention cut drastically (particularly for the developing world) arsenic in drinking water -> increase in acceptable limits reversed after government research showed that it is even more deleterious than previously thought blood lead levels in children -> one Bush appointee on environmental health at the CDC, Dr. William Banner, questions whether low blood levels really do affect children, although he allows that levels of ~50-70 are harmful -- several very good studies show that levels as low as 3 (IIRC the units are ug/dL, although they might be ppm?) cause intellectual and/or behavioural problems women's health -> Dr. W. David Hager, appointed last year to the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, co-wrote a book on women's health in which he "recommends specific Scripture readings and prayers for such ailments as headaches and premenstrual syndrome," and refuses to write Rxs for birth control to unmarried women. Now I think he can do whatever he bloody well pleases in his own private practice (although *I'd* certainly not put up with such a misogynist OB-GYN!), but to give him any power over all women in America is both ludicrous and dangerous. I will merely mention several other "rational measures" in which the Bush administration has also performed poorly: constitutionality, the environment, foreign relations (the economy I will have to leave to those better qualified to judge, but bankruptcies and job loss in CO are significant still - I can get numbers if anybody wants a cite). Then there's the peculiar public stance of chastising a democratically elected government for acting 'in their own interests' against a Communist one...with which we happen to have a huge trade deficit. Maybe that was supposed to make up for the public saber-rattling at China early in his term. > ...Reuters recently ran a feature that trumpeted the > "fact" that U.S. > casualties in Iraq have now surpassed U.S. > casualties in the first three > years of the Vietnam War. Never mind that this is a > specious distortion of > the facts, which depends on the ignorance of > American readers. This is of course as sneakily misleading as Mr. Card states; I cannot help but note that the same is true of threatening the American people with visions of mushroom clouds over our cities. > Vietnam was a quagmire only because we fought it > that way. If we had closed > North Vietnam's ports and carried the war to the > enemy, victory could have > been relatively quick. However, the risk of Chinese > involvement was too great... True, AFAIK (meaning, I agree that the American goal was not _victory_, but don't know the cites to back that), although I think the majority of Vietcong were much more dedicated (and vicious) fighters than most Iraqis have proven to be thus far. (Of course there are extremist terrorists of severe and vicious dedication - just not as prevalent in the Iraqi population as I had thought, before this war began.) > In other words, the Iraq campaign isn't over--and > President Bush has > explicitly said so all along. So the continuation of > combat and casualties > isn't a "failure" or a "quagmire," it's a "war." What was declared over in May? > Our soldiers will lose heart, because they will know > that their commander > in chief is a man who is not committed to winning > the war they have risked > death in order to fight. When the commander in chief > is willing to call > victory defeat in order to win an election, his > soldiers can only assume > that their lives will be thrown away for nothing. > That's when an army, > filled with despair, becomes beatable even by > inferior forces... While I disagreed vehemently with the "reasons for" and the way this conflict was initiated and planned, now that we are there, we cannot leave until Iraq is secure and stable. To abandon the country now is not only to lose heart and "face," but will provide fertile ground for more international terrorism. Leaving prematurely would allow another Taliban-esque faction a home base. > This time an enemy attacked civilian targets on our > soil. The enemy--a > conspiracy of terrorists sponsored by a dozen or so > nations and unable to > function without their aid--was hard to attack > directly; so the only > feasible strategy was to remove, by force if > necessary, the governments > that sheltered and sponsored terrorism. **Where is the evidence showing a link between Saddam and 9/11?** This is poor reasoning: pre-emptive strikes *must* have clear justification of direct threat to or attack on a country. Afghanistan met this criteria for us -- Iraq did not (in spite of SH's being a murderous criminal who deserves death). > ...Our national media are covering this war as if we > were "losing the > peace"--even though we are not at peace and we are > not losing. Why are they > doing this? Because they are desperate to spin the > world situation in such > a way as to bring down President Bush. Personally, I think the media gave him a free ride for a long time before they started to question his administration's mode of conducting business. > ...We are being lied to and "spun," and not in a > trivial way. Agreed. But by the extremists of *both* 'ends.' > I can think of many, many reasons why the > Republicans should not control > both houses of Congress and the White House. But > right now, if the > alternative is the Democratic Party as led in > Congress and as exemplified > by the current candidates for the Democratic > nomination, then I can't be > the only Democrat who will, with great reluctance, > vote not just for George > W. Bush, but also for every other candidate of the > only party that seems > committed to fighting abroad to destroy the enemies > that seek to kill us and our friends at home. Disagreed. Of course, I only voted Democrat in the last Presidential election because W seemed to me poorly suited to lead Western society. OTOH, I can't say that I'm thrilled with any of the current Democratic candidates either. Debbi As Picard Might Say, "Merde!" Maru :-/ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
