Three somewhat short political notes

[heidi]

Since my post last week about Sinclair disapeared because of my LJ problems, I didn't get to fully rant about their decision to try and game the electorate by showing an anti-Kerry film that is filled with distortions, and whose producers have been accused of libel by one of the other soldiers featured in the film. So, instead, I'll just do a follow-up today by noting that their stock is in free-fall, and MediaMatters is underwriting a shareholder lawsuit against the company.

Our two contenders for Senate from Florida had a debate last night, and the Republican candidate, Mel Martinez, said he was anti stem cell research, but was okay with in vitro fertalization. Can someone, ideally someone who doesn't support allowing additional lines of stem cells for research, please explain to me how those positions are inherently consistent with each other? Also, I'm wondering, in a sort of curious way, whether anyone in California who was voting against Kerry solely, or substantially, because of Kerry's position on stem cell research will now refuse to support Gov. Arnold in the future. But I'm not seeking a specific answer on that the same way I am regarding Martinez's position.

Lastly, can someone please explain to my why Bush's lie in the last debate regarding concern/worry and Osama got half as much press attention as Kerry's legitimate, fair and truthful statement about Mary Cheney? Also, was there anyone on my flist, at least in terms of those in the US, who didn't know, before the last debate, that she was a lesbian?

Oh, I guess I do have one more comment/question: Has Bush said there won't be a draft at all period no way no how, or there won't be a *general* draft? Because if it's the latter, well, maybe - but if it's the former, then I guess they've decided to not utilize the contingency plans for a draft of doctors, nurses and other health care workers.The New York Times has an article today which says that in a recent article in The Wisconsin Medical Journal, published by the state medical society, Col. Roger A. Lalich, a senior physician in the Army National Guard, said: "It appears that a general draft is not likely to occur. A physician draft is the most likely conscription into the military in the near future." So just an FYI for those of you in the medical fields...

Comments

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

In January 2004, Cheney said in a radio interview, "I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaida and the Iraqi government."

“Connection” doesn’t mean they sat down and plotted together. Even the 9/11 Commission admitted there were connections between the two.
Okay, now you're changing the focus of this discussion. I was replying to this (I've flipped your sentences for readability:
no one in the Bush cabinet made [the] claim ... that Osama and Saddam ... got together and plotted against the US

I showed you various quotes where the vice president, who is, we agree, a member of the president's cabinet, did make that claim. Or are you trying to say in a weird, twisted and logic-free way that when Dick Cheney said:

If we're successful in Iraq, then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.

he was saying that the geographic base wasn't Iraq, but, in fact, the Middle East as a whole? Because, well, if Iraq actually wasn't harboring any of the terrorists who were, in any way, connected to the planning or execution of 9/11, then they can't be the geographic base. It's physically impossible. And, you know, when I look at a nice BBC map of the Middle East, it looks to me like Saudi Arabia is the geographic heart. You know Saudi Arabia, where Wahhabism is taught in state-run schools .

[(Anonymous)]

I showed you various quotes where the vice president, who is, we agree, a member of the president's cabinet, did make that claim. Or are you trying to say in a weird, twisted and logic-free way that when Dick Cheney said:

If we're successful in Iraq, then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.

he was saying that the geographic base wasn't Iraq, but, in fact, the Middle East as a whole? Because, well, if Iraq actually wasn't harboring any of the terrorists who were, in any way, connected to the planning or execution of 9/11, then they can't be the geographic base. It's physically impossible. And, you know, when I look at a nice BBC map of the Middle East, it looks to me like Saudi Arabia is the geographic heart. You know Saudi Arabia, where Wahhabism is taught in state-run schools .

You’re being pedantic. Al Qaeda are not the only terrorists who want to destroy us -- they're simply the ones who got to us first, on 9/11. Cheney is referring to fundamentalist Islamic terrorism, which comes (or came) from many places in the Middle East – Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and yes, Saudi Arabia. Our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have, indeed, “struck a major blow” against that. For one thing, Libya willingly gave up its WMD program. Saddam is no longer able to collaborate with terrorists. Pakistan has become enough of an ally to help us capture terrorists on their soil. At least 2/3 of the Al Qaeda leadership has been killed. And, we’ve gotten info that has helped us thwart attacks and keep America safer.

I don’t think Cheney misspoke (or lied) at all. I think he meant what he said, and was exactly right.

[nostrademons.livejournal.com]

(Grr. Broken HTML in last attempt. Will try to fix & delete.)

I don't normally like to get involved in political debates, as I tend to think they're a waste of time. The real power centers in the world are economic, and I'd much rather be rich than right. But since I'm doing a paper for my International Relations course (or procrastinating on it), here's a little factcheck:

Take a look at the State Department list of terrorist organizations. In particular:

Abu Nidal Organization, leader found dead in Iraq before the American occupation.
Ansar al-Islam, formed in 1991 to aid a Kurdish uprising against Saddam.

Opposite them is the Mujaheddin-e Khalq Organization, the only group actively supported by Saddam Hussein's government.

That's it. Of the several dozen terrorist groups under state-department watch, only 3 of them were based in Iraq, and the only one with an international reach was eliminated by Saddam Hussein.

As a despotic ruler, Saddam hated terrorists. They're a threat to his power, and so had to be done away with, usually far more brutally than Bush would've done.

Ironically, the terrorist threat from Iraq has become much more intense since we've invaded it. Areas of Iraq not currently under U.S. control have become a breeding ground for terrorist cells, as they use the disgruntled population and disorganized law-enforcement to step up their recruitment.

And if Pakistan is such an ally, explain why the vast plurality of terrorist groups on the State Department list use it as a base, and why we have been unable to capture Osama bin Laden (widely reported to be hiding in the tribal areas of Pakistan).