Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Nothing New on My Needles
As for some of the ignored comments from previous posts, I will try to address them here:
If the Democrats are more surprised than typical losers in a close election, I think it may be because they worked very hard for this one. Many of my friends were out doing "get out the vote" campaigns. In addition, the creation of a number of left-wing forums (like moveon.org) and movies like Moore's F. 9/11 have polarized the left.
I can see that. I just don't understand how it went unnoticed that the right was also hyper-motivated, and that they were out doing the "get out the vote" stuff also. In my mind this points to the way the media ignores conservatives unless they are bashing them. This was an election in which all sides, all people were trying to get as many people out to vote as possible. That's why I wouldn't have been that surprised with either outcome.
And having sat through years of disgust with Clinton supporters who glossed over his legal lies over the affair (not that they forgave him, which would be different, but treated it as irrelevant) because they so desperately wanted their party to be in power - I don't see any reason to be less critical of the current administration's lies. Which is why I don't equate a vote for Bush as a vote for morality. He lied to keep the presidency. Not the first to do so, but when both sides play the same game - both sides resorted to personal attacks - I can't pretend one is more "moral."
I'm confused by this. What did Cheney lie about? Are we talking the WMDs? Or something else? I also have a question to anyone about WMDs. Everyone I know considers biological and chemical weapons to be included in this, which Iraq has aplenty, are people only counting nuclear? And if so, doesn't it seem odd to charge that we have no business there if they aren't present, since it is largely US, and partially UN, pressure and presence which kept Saddam Hussein from getting them much earlier?
As for the morality, for me, I just couldn't vote for someone whose first act in office (what he said he'd do) would be to overturn the Mexico City policy. Our country already kills more through abortion annually than have died on all sides in the War on Terror. Most of the deaths in the war have been combattants, at least. Though I have some reservations with war in general and even with how we are handling this war, I don't see them as equivalent to purposing to kill unborn who have no choice in where they happen to reside. I don't want to pay for it with my tax money which is what Kerry would have done.
To me the basic life or death issues, immediate not possible, trumped any other issue of the election. Someone who is so pro-abortion, even to partial birth abortion, an attitude which has led to "post-birth" abortions in the Netherlands, pro-euthanasia, when we've already learned that people are offing granny because they don't want to deal with her or pay for her medical care, rather than because she is actually terminally ill, pro-embryonic stem cell research, which creates a market for unborn babies (and hasn't produced any success, while adult stem cell research has and can be done without loss of life, and under consent), pro-human cloning which is another example of degradation of human life, cannot win my vote. To be honest, I don't trust the judgement of someone who finds human life so expendable in dealing with the war, either. I'd rather have someone who valued human life in charge of our war policies than someone who doesn't think humans matter all that much.
Saddam Hussain wanted them. A lot. He thought they were critical to the security of Iraq. But, his first goal was to get the sanctions lifted, so he was playing the good guy.
This is not to say that he was nothing to worry about--he clearly wanted these weapons. It's true that he had some dual-use chemical programs where the results could be for civilian or military uses. Also, he was winning sympathy with the world, and so it seemed reasonable that if something wasn't done, sanctions would eventually be lifted, and he'd get his WMDs. (The oil-for-food program was a help to him as well.)
But the fact remains that he did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons in March 2003 and did not seem to have a major program. My source for this is the Duelfer report. I read the key findings.
Links to this post: