Rachel,
I agree that the National Guard is not at full capacity here in the US, but there's no reason that that fact should impact the governments ability to cope with natural disasters. The Katrina problems stemmed from incompetence at the local, state, and federal levels. They had trouble getting assets into place, not lacking assets. And in California they need fire-fighters and rain, not soldiers. Of course the NG could help displaced people, but so could anyone else. Mr. Garamendi's comments on Hardball were political opportunities. Opportunities which seemed, at least to you me and Justin, to be well worth it (since we're still talking about him).
---
I don't take Bush criticism personally. If I did that I would be pissed off pretty much every second of every day until he leaves office (and probably beyond that too). So, I was not upset by Justins comments. I was more amused (no offense Justin). It reminded me of me, bitching up a storm about Bill Clinton and how I thought that everything that was going wrong was ultimately his fault. These days I like giving the Dems the benefit of the doubt, and I am always reexamining the Repubs for mistakes that they've made (boy have they been fucking up recently). Now that doesn't mean that I don't get angry and rail agains Pelosi and company, it just means that I attempt to be more patient.
As far as Bush and me. I will support him as long as he continues the current policy in regards to Iraq, Afghanistan, the pursuit of international terrorist organizations, and intelligence gathering. For me those are my principle issues, and I will vote for the candidate that I feel will continue these policies and also be able to adjust to future developments.
Now does that mean that I am wholeheartedly for every foreign or security policy that Bush has either pushed or created? Not at all. I understand, and try not to dismiss, the concerns expressed by you and Justin. And if Bush has a policy that I support, but don't like, then I'm open to hearing alternatives. But only if that alternative policy takes into account the risks and dangers that the current policy already addresses.
(quick aside -- The only Democratic candidate who does this (as far as I'm concerned) is Hillary Clinton. So while I will not vote for her, I hope beyond hope if a Democrat should win, that she will be it. She is the only Dem candidate that I believe is being serious about foreign policy and security issues.)
You guys are constantly tearing down the current policies for a whole litany of reasons, but rarely do you offer up your vision for alternatives. Because you don't do this, it is sometimes hard for me to take you seriously. So what I find frustrating is not Justin's rampaging, but how to respond without myself going on a rampage. Because I do respect you opinions and I don't want you to think otherwise.
T
ps. I'd like to get back to talking about the Military Commissions Act, will try to comment later this week
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hmm, so I'm being political because I pointed out several things that are examples of Bush's incompetence and one of them referred to a comment made by a Democrat?
But you're not when you just disregard everything I said because I included the comments of a Democrat?
---
I agree that hippies and protestors who romp around with their dreads and bitch about the world without offering any practical solutions are fucking retarded.
And frankly, I find your accusation that I'm one of them fucking insulting as hell.
As for my post, since it seems to be beyond your ability to process as a list of obviously fucked up examples of things that ARE DIRECTLY HIS FAULT, allow me to elaborate.
1) Iraq is becoming more of a powder keg with Turkey's attacks on the Kurds. Another sign of how fucked up this policy is.
Hippy's opinion: We shouldn't have pursued this idiotic pipe-dream and our leaders should have known it.
2) The ice is disappearing.
Hippy's opinion: Maybe we should do something about this instead of denying that it is happening.
3) Almost all of our NG equipment is in Iraq. This fact has hampered our responses to Katrina, the Kansas tornadoes, and the CA wildfires.
Hippy's opinion: They would do more good here. Maybe we should realize we are making ourselves vulnerable by investing all our resources in Iraq.
4) Bush wants to freeze poor families.
Hippy's opinion: Let's not freeze poor families.
5) We missed an obvious opportunity to kill bin Laden.
Hippy's opinion: We have lost focus on bin Laden and AQ. We should rectify that. PLUS: good example of how inept this admin is.
6) Iraq estimate = $50 billion/6 months
Iraq reality = $2.4 trillion/15 years
Hippy's opinion: Do I seriously need to explain this?
7) An example of the administration's political hack jobs on federal science.
Hippy's opinion: Stop fucking with scientific reports because they contradict your fucked up policy with inconvenient things like reality.
Tybz,
As Justin pointed out, it may not necessarily be people power, but equipment power. In fact, I do recall reading about how troops in Iraq have inadequate equipment, eg tanks that were not meant to go so long in a desert climate without being cycled through for repair and replaced with others.
I don;t really know for sure and have not researched this. But given the unexpected length of our occupation, it seems plausible that we have overstretched our limits in material supplies, troop levels and cold hard cash.
Also, I concede the point that Garamendi's comments had a politically opportunistic aim and, personally, agree with you about the need to point to alternatives instead of pointing to problems. It does not really help anymore to point out that W (and every Congressman and woman who has voted along with him) has made terrible choices. The state of our country and the state of our relations with other countries is a testament to that fact.
That said, at the same time, I cannot deny Bush's (and his cronies) responsibility for many, many problems. Luckily, I do NOT expect him to present any solutions. And I have been thinking carefully about why I question certain things that certain people say. One reason that I do not trust most of Bush's associates is his clear, publicly viewable record of appointing people loyal to him to positions for which they are not qualified. Perhaps those people make bad decisions, but ultimately, I hold Bush responsible for putting them there, which I believe he does out of both hubris and cowardice, two dangerous qualities for a leader to have. Particularly one who came into office with such an ambitious agenda.
Clearly, we will probably never see eye to eye about foreign policy. The reason that this discussion rarely goes anywhere is that it seems we are ideologically opposed. For me, imperialism is an abhorrent and atiquated notion. If that makes me a liberal or a progressive, well, OK.
I hope you don't think that this means that I dismiss the importance of national defense and ensuring our safety as best we can. I do not, but I wholeheartedly refuse to become that which we claim to oppose, which in many ways we have.
I do look forward to hearing what you think about the military commissions act.
As for Hilary, I would hate to see another Clinton in office. I would feel ridiculous saying, yes, I'm from America. Yes, we had Bush, then Clinton, then Bush, then Clinton. Um, NO we are not a monarchy! A democracy! yes, really!
Post a Comment