Posts Made By: Joe Williams

Walter,
I understand your sentiments and I sympathize with some of them, not all. Right now, we are in the middle of a war. Regardless or the pretexts that led us to that war, it is a war none the less. You folks can drag G.W. Bush out and tar & feather him for all I care. I only ask that you wait for our boys to come home first. Right now, Bush is commander & chief regardless of whether we like it or not. This continual degrading and public criticism of the actions taken in Iraq at this point in time, can only hurt the cause, unless you feel your cause is sedition.

For those of you who will wave the First Amendment in response, save it. Viet Nam was the first military action where what the media reported wasn't strictly controlled. FDR probably violated more people's 1st Amendment rights than any other president in history.

James,
Thanks for picking this back up. Here's my opinion.

First of all, I believe the solution lies within the Iraqis themselves. We (the U.S) should foster a coalation of representatives from each of these factions, provide a set of ground rules, or tenets that cannot be breached. The representative should be selected from within each of these sects, not hand picked by US. Perhaps this should be done through a monitored election process. The goal is to provide true representation.

One such goal would be to agree on a timeframe whereby our troops would reposition out of urban areas into more isolated rural area. This would serve two purposes: It would removed them from immediate visability from the majority of Iraqi's (out of site, out of mind). Secondly, it would allow them to choose the most easily defendable areas possible. This would have the net effect of placing primary security into the hands of the Iraqi police force, but with U.S. troops at hand should they be needed.

The second goal for the coalation would be to identify and record the past and present grievances between them. These need to come out in the open in order for any agreements to have any hope of public buy-in. These need to be carefully channeled so as to be attributed to Saddam's regime. I know that sounds fishy, but I believe it's necessary. I like what South Africa did with the criminals of apartheid. They put them on trial, convicted them and then immediately forgave their crimes. Forgiveness is a trait of Christian belief and not necessarily an attribute if Islam, so I'm not sure about this.

Any constitution for the new Iraq should be validated, if not created by this coalition. Some tenets of the constitution that we should insist upon are a ban on weapons and a national army. In exchange we would promise support as we do for any other ally. An attack on Iraq is an attack on the U.S.

Once it is apparent that the Iraqi police have control, our force could, after a period, begin to come home.

Just some thoughts. Not yet fully baked.

-Joe

James,
My old thread became much too long for these old eyes to follow any longer so I missed your original reply. I just went back and read it after I first replied to this thread. I believe we're saying pretty much the same thing.
1. True representation and public buy-in in the governing process.
2. A democratic government.
3. U.S. military support as needed.

To show how decadent the Democratic Party has become since President Kennedy's day, we turn to blogger Josh Marshall, whom this column regards as the authoritative voice of partisan Democrats. Not surprisingly, he gives President Bush an unfavorable review:

What I saw was a man with a quiver of cliches and a few simple stock arguments. . . . It's become a bit impolitic in Washington to question whether the president really knows what he's doing or whether he has any sort of a detailed handle on what's going on on his watch. But I didn't see much sign of either. I just saw a lot of push harder, freedom, we're changing the world, ditching my policies means the terrorists win, etc.

So freedom is just a cliché? Such sneering cynicism is certainly a far cry from "pay any price, bear any burden." If this is really what the 21st-century Democratic Party thinks of freedom, maybe John Kerry should make Bobby McGee his running mate.

I knew this would get your goat! ;-)

It seems that the primary arguments against the analogy in this article take two forms: One implies that Bush is nothing like JFK; the other implies that JFK is a bad thing to emulate. The problem, as I see it, is that these arguments work against each other. They seem to be contradictory to the point you want to make.

Perhaps a better question would be: Do you agree with that portion of JFK's speech that declares: "We shall pay any price , bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty" ?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

??? What article did you read ???

Your comments don't seem to jive with the content of the article? Who said anything about "walk quietly and carry a big stick?"

Kerry's involvement with VVAW has drawn attention to the group's most unsavory activities, such as a discussion of an assassination plot against pro-war senators that took place at a November 1971 meeting. Kerry played no part in that plot and might not even have attended the meeting, but inevitably a politician is judged by the company he keeps.
By signing up with VVAW way back when, Kerry made it harder today to present himself as a war hero. Whereas veterans might ordinarily identify with one of their own, many are furious over what they see as his betrayal back in 1971.

He attacked his opponents for not serving. This didn't start with his response to Medalgate, in which for the first time he raised the tired old question of President Bush's National Guard attendance record. Here he is in Pittsburgh April 19: "I'm tired of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and a bunch of people who went out of their way to avoid their chance to serve when they had the chance. I'm not going to listen to them talk to me about patriotism." Such partisan demagoguery might have played well in the primaries, but it's unlikely to win over many wavering voters in the fall.


Is there anything Kerry can do to get himself out of this mess? Maybe. His war record ought to count to his credit, but he'd be better off talking much less about his own heroism in Vietnam and letting others make the case instead. Probably the best moment in his entire campaign came in Iowa, when Lt. James Rassmann thanked him for saving his life.

I was around during those times. I'm also a veteran. There is little difference between medals and ribbons. They are both awards (sometimes the same award) that are authorized for different uniforms.

Kerry made a statement when he performed this act. The problem I see is that he is now attempting to reinterpret the meaning of that act. Whether it was a courageous or appropriate act is a subjective judgement and best made by the individual. He ought to defend his action or admit it's mistake, but not reinterpret it. Most people see this as nothing but partisan waffling.

I've watched Ted Koppel a few time in the last couple of weeks. His broadcasts are most definatley tainted toward the anti-war anti-Bush side. That said, I agree with McCain's assesment. He should be allowed to broadcast it.