War use for campaigning

[michaeledward]

I also think Clinton could have led us into the same war,

But, he didn't.

 

[MisterMike]

I'm confused about the noun in your first sentence, 'Issue'. To which 'issue' are you referring? Nightingale made a comment about how the images from September 11 might be used (there is a distinct difference between viewing the footage as a reminder, and using the footage for political gain.). I don't recall any vote on how images from September 11th might be used. (Nightingale, I hope you don't mind my commenting here on your behalf).

The issue of whether or not to go to war in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

I'm wondering if it is taboo to bring up your past record on war in a Presidential election and how using that record for political gain it a shame as opposed to the candidate's stances on other issues.

I think he has a right to defend his actions in office and remind us of what they meant to him. They were a direct response or related to 9/11. Seems good enough a reason to me to put scenes in a campaign message.

You see, I think endorsers and the opposition BOTH know that the President's ratings were VERY high in how he handled 9/11. Now one side wants to be able to strip him of that, and they do so by challenging his taste in ads.

 

[MisterMike]

But, he didn't.

Because he was a puss and the military wouldn't follow him to a Superbowl game, much less a war.

 

[michaeledward]

Because he was a puss and the military wouldn't follow him to a Superbowl game, much less a war.

But let's not forget that it was Bill Clinton's military that Rumsfeld used to do such a great job in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And just to be clear, when I say 'Bill Clinton's military', I mean the military organization and weaponry that Bill Clinton put into place during the eight years of his presidency.

 

[MisterMike]

But let's not forget that it was Bill Clinton's military that Rumsfeld used to do such a great job in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And just to be clear, when I say 'Bill Clinton's military', I mean the military organization and weaponry that Bill Clinton put into place during the eight years of his presidency.

Or what was left of it. Clinton wouldn't use what he had. Case in point, Somalia. I shudder to think of what he would have sent into Iraq.

 

[michaeledward]

Or what was left of it. Clinton wouldn't use what he had. Case in point, Somalia. I shudder to think of what he would have sent into Iraq.

The US Military was involved in Somalia because of President G.H.W. Bush (not Clinton). Clinton inherited Somalia.

Let's take a look at what Ambassador Robert Oakley has to say about Clinton and the Military.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/interviews/oakley.html

Somalia got caught up in the basic problems of the poor relationship between our people in uniform and the new Clinton administration. There was sort of a feeling--without having really seen what President Clinton and his administration was going to do in practice--that they were going to slash the defense budget, that they didn't care about the people in uniform, that the military was going to be pushed back into a place of secondary importance and perhaps dishonor, as it had been after Vietnam. And there was a very strong feeling of resentment on the part of people in uniform.

But then, Somalia had just as many Weapons of Mass Destruction when GHWBush invaded as GWBush has found in Iraq.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Gee whillikers, I see that y'all ignored my post. Well, I would too, were I in your shoes.

Hate to get all technical, but we aren't at war.

Love the fact that--and yet people laugh at Freud!--that the basic arguments against Clinton reveal so much of what Neil Hertz identified as, "male hysteria under political pressure."

So which way you want it? Clinton (reads like, "clitoris," in your analysis, don't it?) didn't know jack and was a scaredy cat, or Clinton understood what was up and couldn't get support, what with the scummy likes of Tom DeLay (oh, SIGMUND?) being so busy to stick it to him?

Maybe Hussein needed to go. Gee...why was it...I forget...that he didn't get thrown out during the FIRST Gulf War? Oh yes..I forgot...a Democratic President refused to let the war be prosecuted to itrs conclusion...oh...wait a minnit...something else...

Don't you guys even get embarassed about these distortions of reality?

 

[Makalakumu]

Last summer I went to the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC and was literally sick. Sick with the act and sick with the knowledge that the holocaust mentality that created the act still exists. It exists in the people who refuse to accept the reality of our leaderships machinations and lies. It exists in the denouncement of dissent by people who have switch their brains into a holy worship rapture mode for their "ideal". The holocaust mentality exists in the hate and the fear and the Pax Americana policies of the right. When you read history you have the ability to fly over years at the speed of your fingers. In real life, you live it and the only thing that can give you warning is the details. Today, the details tell us that we might possible have a choice in 2004. Vote for Bush and the New World Order of American Fascism or vote for Kerry and maybe we will have a future of freedom.

Kerry is not my first choice, but he is ABB big time.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

I don't think Bush or Clinton lied or misled the country about Iraq. I think they both had access to the same information. I also think Clinton could have led us into the same war, but his credibility was at an all time low and it was not politically expedient to start a war when he wanted his "legacy" to be a peaceful one. That was why he was pushing so hard with the Palestinians and the Israelis to come to some sort of agreement.

Clinton did not lead us to war because he listened to his advisors. He listened to people who said that there might be problems with the data. President Clinton did not take us to war with Iraq because he did not have billions of dollars of oil at stake in his personal fortunes.

 

[Makalakumu]

Don't you guys even get embarassed about these distortions of reality?

These distortions of reality are essential in the creation of a fascist state and an imperium. Its sick how many people are sucked in despite knowledge of history.

 

[Makalakumu]

Because he was a puss and the military wouldn't follow him to a Superbowl game, much less a war.

This is an interesting statement of bravado coming from someone who isn't putting his life on the line. I wonder if he would think differently if the first military objectives protected were the oil feilds. "Save the people of Iraq, but before you save anyone save the OIL!"

 

[MisterMike]

The US Military was involved in Somalia because of President G.H.W. Bush (not Clinton). Clinton inherited Somalia.

Let's take a look at what Ambassador Robert Oakley has to say about Clinton and the Military.


But then, Somalia had just as many Weapons of Mass Destruction when GHWBush invaded as GWBush has found in Iraq.

"Inherited" or not, he still botched it up.

 

[MisterMike]

This is an interesting statement of bravado coming from someone who isn't putting his life on the line. I wonder if he would think differently if the first military objectives protected were the oil feilds. "Save the people of Iraq, but before you save anyone save the OIL!"

I fail to see the brovado, and oh no, not the oil theory again.

 

[michaeledward]

"Inherited" or not, he still botched it up.

Did you read the comments of the Ambassador?

I'll paraphrase ... the military acted in a way unbecoming. They made judgements about the incoming commander-in-chief, and took actions based on those assumptions. It was the actions of the military against Clinton, that affected Somalia.

If there were errors on the part of the Clinton Adminstration concerning Somalia, they were based on properly preparing the American Public for the possibility of casualties, at least that is what the Republican appointed Ambassador points out in his discussion.

Meanwhile, back in Winchendon, people remain blind to facts of experts, relying strictly on the propaganda of Rush Limbaugh & Sean Hannity.

Oh, yeah .. and 4 more US Soldiers died today in Iraq, searching for the Yellowcake Uranium from Niger. Who botched this up?

 

[MisterMike]

Did you read the comments of the Ambassador?

I'll paraphrase ... the military acted in a way unbecoming. They made judgements about the incoming commander-in-chief, and took actions based on those assumptions. It was the actions of the military against Clinton, that affected Somalia.

If there were errors on the part of the Clinton Adminstration concerning Somalia, they were based on properly preparing the American Public for the possibility of casualties, at least that is what the Republican appointed Ambassador points out in his discussion.

Meanwhile, back in Winchendon, people remain blind to facts of experts, relying strictly on the propaganda of Rush Limbaugh & Sean Hannity.

Oh, yeah .. and 4 more US Soldiers died today in Iraq, searching for the Yellowcake Uranium from Niger. Who botched this up?

No, it would be the error of relying on the UN. An error the current President did not make before taking action to defend this country. The country where residents of Winchendon do not rely on propaganda and thankfully do not include yourself.

What a clown.

 

[michaeledward]

No, it would be the error of relying on the UN. An error the current President did not make before taking action to defend this country. The country where residents of Winchendon do not rely on propaganda and thankfully do not include yourself.

What a clown.

OK.. I got it. I'm a clown.

The President is responsible fully for having 550+ United States soldiers dying in Iraq to defend the United States from .... from .... what was the President defending us from again?

Oh, that's right it was ... Weapons of Mass Destruction, wasn't it? That's right the Presidents man in Baghdad, David Kay reported that Saddam Hussein's regime had no significant chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs or stockpiles still in place.

But at least we don't have to blame this on relying on the United Nations. And isn't it wonderful that it is only costing you and I (American Taxpayers) one billion dollars a week. What a bargian.

Yea! US!

 

[MisterMike]

OK.. I got it. I'm a clown.

The President is responsible fully for having 550+ United States soldiers dying in Iraq to defend the United States from .... from .... what was the President defending us from again?

Oh, that's right it was ... Weapons of Mass Destruction, wasn't it? That's right the Presidents man in Baghdad, David Kay reported that Saddam Hussein's regime had no significant chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs or stockpiles still in place.

But at least we don't have to blame this on relying on the United Nations. And isn't it wonderful that it is only costing you and I (American Taxpayers) one billion dollars a week. What a bargian.

Yea! US!

Well alright...look..we've both been in on the same war discussions before and I'd rather not do it again because I believe our support of war obviously comes from different beliefs/conditions/whathave you. The tit for tat over past/pesent politians realllly doesn't excite me because in general, it's going to take someone pretty darn special to get this country out of the hole it's heading for and I haven't seen him/her yet.

My only question back on around page 1 of this thread is should use of all tragic events be stricken from the campaign.

Someone posted this topic and oviously disagrees with the President's ads. So I'm curious to know if that type of subject is not supposed to come up during an election year. We know the press has been all over it 'till now. I'm wondering why the President cannot use any footage in his ads.

Apparently no-body else really cares as they've only jumped in on the topic of Clinton, Iraq and now Somalia.

I'm genuinely curious to know if people really find the ad tasteless. Or if it's just the latest try at a jab from the political opposition.

Oh, by the way, tastes vary and it's aiming your ads at those tastes that helps wins people over in that demographic area. There's never going to be one that Everyone likes. Me, I have no issue with it. Other than that there's really nothing more to say.

 

[michaeledward]

Well alright...look..we've both been in on the same war discussions before and I'd rather not do it again because I believe our support of war obviously comes from different beliefs/conditions/whathave you. The tit for tat over past/pesent politians realllly doesn't excite me because in general, it's going to take someone pretty darn special to get this country out of the hole it's heading for and I haven't seen him/her yet.

My only question back on around page 1 of this thread is should use of all tragic events be stricken from the campaign.

Someone posted this topic and oviously disagrees with the President's ads. So I'm curious to know if that type of subject is not supposed to come up during an election year. We know the press has been all over it 'till now. I'm wondering why the President cannot use any footage in his ads.

Apparently no-body else really cares as they've only jumped in on the topic of Clinton, Iraq and now Somalia.

I'm genuinely curious to know if people really find the ad tasteless. Or if it's just the latest try at a jab from the political opposition.

Oh, by the way, tastes vary and it's aiming your ads at those tastes that helps wins people over in that demographic area. There's never going to be one that Everyone likes. Me, I have no issue with it. Other than that there's really nothing more to say.

Fair enough ...

I too have no problem with the use of the images for 4 seconds in the presidents re-election advertisements.

However, some people who were touched far more deeply than I on September 11th are upset about the use of the images. It is interesting that the administration is spinning these people as 'some Democrats'.

Harold Sheitberger - President of the International Association of Fire Fighters said "The fact is, Bush's actions have resulted in fire stations closing in communities around the country. Two-thirds of America's fire departments remain under-staffed because Bush is failing to enforce a new law that was passed with bipartisan support...to put more fire fighters in our communities"

Monica Gabrielle, a 9/11 widow said "It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people. It's unconscionable."

Bob McIlvaine, a 9/11 parent said "My son was murdered on September 11th. To argue that using footage of the wreckage of the towers to further someone's political career is 'tasteful' really needs to be rejected outright, and I condemn it."
​

There are enough people out there who are upset about the use of these images, and I think the Re-election committee heard these comments, and changed tactics quick. What I find aggrevating is the way the Right-Wing Radio ascribes all of those who find it objectionable as 'Democrats', 'Unpatriotic', and or somehow indifferent to the tragic event.

Mike

 

[rmcrobertson]

...liked the info about the fire fighters, because what it brings out is that the Prez and his cronies--and I do mean cronies--couldn't give a damn about working people, except as an exchangeable image.

And by all means, let's bash the UN. Because after all, it's FAR better to bomb than to talk. And it's INFINITELY more adult to demand more and more violence--especially from a safe distance--than it is to face the reality of politics and even UN screwups/corruption, and to accept the time that peace takes, and the stumbles, and the compromises.

NOOOO! georgie wants way NOW! MY world!!

Hell, if we'd let the UN have its way, things might've been settled without a war. And that would be dead against all the moral and practical principles of martial arts....hey, wait a minnit....

 

[Ender]

But, he didn't.

Which is precisely the point. Clinton ran a "risk-adverse" administration. He never took action when he should have. 3 times helicopters were loaded and readied, field plans were made, the location of Osama Bin Laden was known, and yet Clinton did nothing. Because of his inaction 9/11 happened. This is why I think it is appropriate that the footage is used, to remind people that things things don't get taken care of, consequences happen.