Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] 10 things to know about McCain (fwd)

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008, Jim Locke wrote:

> What exactly did Kerry flip-flop on?  The media and Bush campaign seemed 
> to paint him this was because of his stance on Iraq and his vote for 
> it/etc. Kerry communication style was not very compatible with the sound 
> bites that the media used and his opponents played on. Deceit is a very 
> powerful thing.
>
> I'm a pretty independent guy, and I don't recall ever thinking "boy, 
> Kerry sure changed his view on that." Not to say he didn't, but where 
> did he change his view/stance during the campaign?

You're definitely right.  It was all baloney.  Some political analysts 
looked back at Cheney's history of statements and it was a lot like 
Kerry's.  After the cold war ended, we were supposed to get a bonus by 
cutting back on defense spending.  Cheney led the effort as a conservative 
Secretary of Defense.  Kerry was into it too.  Later, Cheney pegged Kerry 
as "soft" because he voted to cut back on military spending -- but Cheney 
wanted it too.  Also, I'm sure most of you know that all of the problems 
we've had in Iraq were predicted years ago by Cheney and others.  Cheney 
opposed marching into Baghdad in 1991 because of these problems, but he 
inexplicably changed his mind a few years later, and it has been a 
disaster.

Did anyone see 60 Minutes tonight?  Watch this segment on Michael Feith, 
the former Undersecretary of Defense:

http://tinyurl.com/5oa6jx

See especially the part about the "CYA Memo" starting at 4:35, especially 
the bit that starts at about 5:15.  It's quite ridiculous that they were 
seeing all of these "possible" pitfalls and they chose to proceed anyway. 
This summary of the main points of the memo was presented:

   the U.S. might not find any weapons of mass destruction ... the U.S.
   could become so absorbed with its Iraq effort that it would pay
   inadequate attention to other serious problems; that war could cause
   more harm and entail greater costs than expected; that it would not go
   on for two to four years, but eight to 10 years; that terrorist
   networks could improve their recruiting and fundraising as a result of
   the U.S. being depicted as anti-Muslim; that Iraq could experience
   ethnic strife among Kurds, Sunnis and Shia and that the war could
   damage Americas relationship with allies and its reputation in the
   world community.

The thing is, they knew, and everyone with expertise knew that this was 
going to be a decade-long nightmare in Iraq.  But these guys desperately 
wanted to make it happen.  Why was that?  Is it because of the effect on 
the price of oil?  It's obviously something absolutely evil or they would 
tell us what it was all about.

Hey -- another cool thing from 60 Minutes tonight:  They're planning 
manned moon and Mars missions.  I guess the idea is to move more money 
into the hands of CEOs at contractors like GE.  Why else would we do it? 
At NASA they say it's a great deal because it is only costing us $0.15 per 
American per day -- that's about $18/month for the average family of four 
(about $1100.00 after 5 years).  Let's vote and see how many people want 
it!  That won't happen.  The leader of the Mars mission thought it was a 
great project because it was *possible* that we will find some evidence of 
previous life on Mars and that would tell us something about the 
probability that life exists in other planetary systems light years away. 
What the hell is that knowledge really worth?  I wouldn't pay $.15/day for 
it and I'm a scientist with a reasonable salary!  The thing is, I assume 
that there is life elsewhere and I don't need to know if it is/was on 
Mars.  Let's fix our bridges, schools, roads, etc., first.  More:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/04/60minutes/main3994925.shtml

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion