SwiftVets.com

[directorblue]

I have a friend, we'll call him "B", who reads my blog on a regular basis and finds my anti-Kerry material... shall we say, irritating. He sent me a lengthy email that I had to share. My responses are interspersed throughout. Hopefully you'll find this interesting.

> I don't have the sense of paranoia, panic, etc that you appear to have
> because I don't think that we're in the ultimate struggle for the
> survival of western civilization...

This is obviously my opinion, but I completely disagree. For all of human history, marshalling the forces necessary to destroy a city required raising an army, feeding it, supplying it, transporting it, and providing for its logistics. Only then could a city be leveled and its residents killed, dispersed or sold into slavery. History is replete with examples of wanton barbarism of this type, from the Mongol hordes to present day Darfur.

Today, leveling a city requires only acquiring, positioning, and detonating a suitcase-sized package. Further, the primary actors are no longer nation-states that fear massive reprisals (the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine of the Cold War). Instead we must now deal with suicidal extremists who believe that their ascent into heaven will be accelerated by killing infidels.

Contention #1: At the intersection of these two trends -- availability of highly portable, massively destructive war machines and suicidal religious extremists -- lies a not insignificant probability of a worst-case scenario as described in the book _EndGame_.

Contention #2: If NYC and DC were vaporized tomorrow, our economic and governmental infrastructures would be devastated. Medicare, Social Security, welfare, and untold other Federal systems would stop printing checks. Brokerage accounts would be, at a minimum inaccessible for weeks, if not months. Tens of millions of jobs would instantly disappear. The best case scenario in this eventuality would be a depression. End of civilization? I don't know, but it's close enough for my tastes.

Now, which of these contentions is invalid? Subject matter experts who are paid to simulate and hypothesize on topics such as these are rightfully concerned. So am I.

> If I thought the struggle was that critical I'd not be talking about
> it; I'd be doing something about it.

And some of us are.

> These are opinions, as are yours,
> no matter how many cites you care to give me. I can find a source for
> any opinion I care to take. That's one of the interesting things about
> this election.

Again, please point to a single citation of opinion and not fact.

> 1) We are not at war in the traditional sense. Yes we were when we
> invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. We aren't in the "war on terror"TM. Iraq
> was done without a plan, based upon false information, for the wrong
> reasons, and at the very least at the wrong time.

Now we've got some rhetoric! I let the results (and the facts) speak for themselves. Since the hostilities began:

- The AQ Kahn Nuclear Parts Network, possibly the most ominous threat to world peace on the planet, has been destroyed. Part of the war on terror? I think so.
- Libya has re-entered the world community and shed its WMD aspirations. Part of the war on terror? I think so.
- Afghanistan, formerly home to one of the most brutal regimes (Taliban) in modern history, is poised to hold national elections next month
- Iraq, formerly a home to Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, a Boeing 707 used to train hijackers, Al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al Islam, and which funded Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups is now poised to become a secular Democracy. Despite the bleak picture you see from the MSM in select cities, 15 of 18 provinces could hold elections tomorrow (ref: Allawi). And that accounts for 75% of the population. Need proof? Check the ever-increasing [url]http://iraqblogcount.blogspot.com/"[/url]Iraq Blog Count. More and more Iraqis are blogging, not fighting.

These are facts. Not rhetoric.

> 2) Yes, there is a struggle and yes it's important, but casting it in
> the light of "war" is the wrong way to view it. We won't win treating
> it like "war". Nor would we win if we treat it like a criminal/police
> event either. We need a new way to look at it. It certainly isn't a
> threat to western civilization as we know it.

The enemy is treating it like a war. And my two contentions above, which I personally believe are true, indicate that -- indeed -- this war <b>is</b> a threat to our basic way of life.

> This needs to be addressed with a long view as I've stated numerous
> times in our discussions. It requires that we change the way we live
> (true energy independence) which is a lot more difficult than sending
> our troops abroad to die without a plan to win the peace (or the
> long-term struggle).

That's all fine, you're saying 'we need to fix the system'. Agreed. <b>But to fix the system, you must have a system to fix</b>. There won't be a system to fix if NYC and DC go up in mushroom clouds. Or it won't be a system we recognize. Perhaps you don't mind that scenario. I do.

> Kerry is a lame offering that is an embarrasment. I cut him more
> slack than you because I understand that when he is attacked it's only
> half of the story. This is particularly true with respect to his voting
> record.

Yes, Kerry is an embarrassment. Joe Lieberman? Sure, I could get behind him. And, yes, John Kerry's voting record is egregious. Watch for a later post regarding his accomplishments. There's nothing to dissect in his record because, according to his own Senate web site, three of the 25 most important accomplishments of his career are:

- Gerry Studds Stewardship Award from the Boston Harbor Island Alliance for his work to preserve the Boston Harbor Islands
- Friends of the Public Garden's "Henry Lee Award" for efforts to preserve Boston's green spaces
- Brockton Little League's "Appreciation Award" for work with special needs division

The man is an empty suit and there is no positive half to his Senate record. In fact, I promise to highlight on my blog any keystone legislation he sponsored, any single act that made a difference to the United States.

> 4) There is a lot of noise and very little truth out there. If you go
> in with bias (and I have mine...see #1, #2, & #3) you can find a source
> that will support you. You can always discount the information you get
> that doesn't match your view so that you can avoid the discomfort of
> having to change said view (and perhaps your behavior). Sure, I can
> cite links that support my view. However, most of those links would be
> opinions which you would discount because they can always be said to
> come from the liberal media. And we know they are out to get us and
> turn the country to communism.

I go back to my citations. Please find a citation that does not refer to a fact and instead references an opinion or judgment. And speaking of the media, a peer-reviewed academic study entitled <a href="http://www.yale.edu/isps/seminars/american_pol/groseclose.pdf">A Measure of Media Bias</a> indicates that the MSM truly does have a liberal agenda. CBS's egregious forgery topped off a string of four consecutive 'hit pieces' on President Bush, while the Swiftboat Veterans -- all 250+ of them -- have yet to be heard from on CBS.

And a quick sidetrack on that topic: so far, it's been Kerry backtracking on the areas in dispute, not the SwiftVets. Christmas in Cambodia? The CIA man with the magic hat? The rice-bin purple heart? Kerry refusing to sign a Form 180 and release his medical records? That should have been a huge story and, if it hadn't been for the blogosphere, FoxNews and a ton of grassroots support, you'd have never heard it. Instead we get forgeries, apparent collusion with the Democratic National Committee, and ignored witnesses... all intended to influence a presidential election... but I guess there's no news story there.

> Look, we're all citizens of this great country and I'm of the belief
> that we all love our country. There are very few of us that want us to
> be socialized or "communized" and certainly less that want us
> terrorized. However, we're more than happy to speak of our countrymen
> (including Bush and Kerry) as if they are traitors. Both sides use
> this rhetoric and can support it with "citations". I think it's all
> useless ******** that excites the emotions without accomplishing
> anything other than to support the existing oligarchy.

It sounds like we're both on the same page with respect to the two-party system. It's both tragic and counterproductive that we can't choose from a larger pool of candidates. But, again, this is the system we have. Fixing the system is much easier if there is still a system around to fix.

John Kerry's history of indecision, poor decisions, appeasement and political expediency is unacceptable from where I stand. And his statements, votes and continual position-shifts on matters of war and peace are neither rhetoric nor opinion. They are a matter of record.

[/url]
_________________
http://directorblue.blogspot.com - click for various missives on the folly of John Kerry's candidacy.

[PC]

Some of my most amusing moments these days are email exchanges between myself and my liberal friends.

What is so pleasing about this, is that they have been so comfortable over the last few years in bashing Bush.

That is the basis of their solidarity. In their circle of friends, that is what they do. It is assumptive that Bush is worthy of bashing.

It has also been assumptive, up until the RNC, that whatever candidate they select, he will defeat our President.

They were so secure, just a matter of time.

Not anymore!

Oh boy do I love taking the position that the election is all but over (I know, I know, keep fighting) and they WILL have 4 more years with President Bush.

They are so scared now.

I love to send questions like: "Please tell me Kerry's position on Iraq? I suggest not answering this question until Friday, as that will give you at least until Monday to have the position remain. He will flip flop on Monday."

It must have been Karl Rove who came up with the flip flop thing. What amunition that is. My lib friends go into this long winded, contrived explantion on why it's not a flip flop, whine, whine, whine.

When they are done, all I have to say is: "Sounds like a FLIP FLOP to me!" They go berserk.

History will prove that the best campaign slogan ever was "I like Ike."

The second best was: "Flip Flop."

[blue9t3]

I spit upon your stupid friend!
_________________
MOPAR-BUYER