Gender and policy preferences
So now we know that the American electorate, or the Democratic portion of it, would rather have any man, black, white or indifferent, than a highly qualified woman. There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is a highly qualified woman to become the first Lady President, she has extensive experience in the political arena, and has suffered a few hard knocks. She is also a "wonk" on such subjects as health care and campaign reform (OK, the last is a bit of humor).
Having selected Barack Obama as their candidate, the most liberal Senator in the current Senate, the Democrats have taken a sharp turn to the left. Meanwhile the rest of the Western world has gone in the opposite direction. Germany has Angela Merkel, France chose Nicolas Sarkozy and Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, and Britain is expected to dump the colorless Gordon Brown for the new, young Conservative leader David Cameron.
So why this turn to the left by the Democratic Party? The answer lies mainly in the visceral hatred of Bush by all liberals. According to them he instigated an unnecessary war using manipulated intelligence, he caused many American boys to be killed, he failed to kill/capture Osama bin Laden, and he has screwed up the economy. If we examine these statements singly, we can see the shallowness of this position. First, two high level Committees failed to find any evidence of Govt. manipulation of intelligence data showing that Saddam Hussein had WMD. At the time almost everybody believed it and it was not intelligence that was manipulated, it was intelligence that was wrong! These things do happen, but the Commander-in-chief (C-in-C) must act on what is believed to be known at the time!
Those who died did so in the course of a just war, and although every death is tragic, for a country the size of the USA the casualties were minimal. Noone could have accurately predicted the insurrection in Iraq after the war, coming as it did from several sources (Saddam hard-liners, Shia militants and al Qaeda), why should Bush be blamed for this? It has been said that there were no al Qaeda in Iraq before the war (a dubious distinction since it was an extreme dictatorship) and Bush caused them to focus there. But, that's the nature of the beast, it moves and changes with time and opportunity. Nevertheless, on its own ground, the US Army, with the surge of troops (an extra 30,000) has apparently managed to reduce, if not defeat, the insurgency. And Osama bin Laden himself has become an irrelevancy. Those who criticized the Bush administration for not sending enough troops in the first place can hardly also criticize them for then sending reinforcements that are taking care of the job by occupying dissident areas. Americans should be happy that the future of Iraq now seems to be assured, but the anti-Bush, anti-war faction are unable to face the truth. So to elect someone who opposed a war that is long over, and who has had no actual contact with the situation in Iraq for years, is on the face of it, absurd.
Screwing up the economy is also a serious complaint against Bush, but actually even with the war and the insurrection ongoing, the US economy had shown great strength. It is only recently with the incredible increase in the cost of crude oil, doubling in the past six months to $150 per barrel, that the economy has come under strain. But, Bush can hardly be blamed for the rise in the cost of oil. For that, blame OPEC and the oil states of Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, etc.. What is happening in effect is that US wealth is being transferred to the oil states at the rate of ca. 1 billion dollars per week. And some of this money is undoubtedly being used to undermine the West and to support terrorism. So to deal with this serious and potentially critical situation, part of which is the nuclear ambitions of Iran, one needs an experienced President to be C-in-C, one well-versed in military and security affairs, which McCain is and Obama certainly is not!
Anyway, may the best man win, but next time let it be a woman.
Having selected Barack Obama as their candidate, the most liberal Senator in the current Senate, the Democrats have taken a sharp turn to the left. Meanwhile the rest of the Western world has gone in the opposite direction. Germany has Angela Merkel, France chose Nicolas Sarkozy and Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, and Britain is expected to dump the colorless Gordon Brown for the new, young Conservative leader David Cameron.
So why this turn to the left by the Democratic Party? The answer lies mainly in the visceral hatred of Bush by all liberals. According to them he instigated an unnecessary war using manipulated intelligence, he caused many American boys to be killed, he failed to kill/capture Osama bin Laden, and he has screwed up the economy. If we examine these statements singly, we can see the shallowness of this position. First, two high level Committees failed to find any evidence of Govt. manipulation of intelligence data showing that Saddam Hussein had WMD. At the time almost everybody believed it and it was not intelligence that was manipulated, it was intelligence that was wrong! These things do happen, but the Commander-in-chief (C-in-C) must act on what is believed to be known at the time!
Those who died did so in the course of a just war, and although every death is tragic, for a country the size of the USA the casualties were minimal. Noone could have accurately predicted the insurrection in Iraq after the war, coming as it did from several sources (Saddam hard-liners, Shia militants and al Qaeda), why should Bush be blamed for this? It has been said that there were no al Qaeda in Iraq before the war (a dubious distinction since it was an extreme dictatorship) and Bush caused them to focus there. But, that's the nature of the beast, it moves and changes with time and opportunity. Nevertheless, on its own ground, the US Army, with the surge of troops (an extra 30,000) has apparently managed to reduce, if not defeat, the insurgency. And Osama bin Laden himself has become an irrelevancy. Those who criticized the Bush administration for not sending enough troops in the first place can hardly also criticize them for then sending reinforcements that are taking care of the job by occupying dissident areas. Americans should be happy that the future of Iraq now seems to be assured, but the anti-Bush, anti-war faction are unable to face the truth. So to elect someone who opposed a war that is long over, and who has had no actual contact with the situation in Iraq for years, is on the face of it, absurd.
Screwing up the economy is also a serious complaint against Bush, but actually even with the war and the insurrection ongoing, the US economy had shown great strength. It is only recently with the incredible increase in the cost of crude oil, doubling in the past six months to $150 per barrel, that the economy has come under strain. But, Bush can hardly be blamed for the rise in the cost of oil. For that, blame OPEC and the oil states of Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, etc.. What is happening in effect is that US wealth is being transferred to the oil states at the rate of ca. 1 billion dollars per week. And some of this money is undoubtedly being used to undermine the West and to support terrorism. So to deal with this serious and potentially critical situation, part of which is the nuclear ambitions of Iran, one needs an experienced President to be C-in-C, one well-versed in military and security affairs, which McCain is and Obama certainly is not!
Anyway, may the best man win, but next time let it be a woman.
posted by Jack Cohen at 6:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home