Sunday, October 17, 2004
In a truly cowardly excuse for editorial writing, the Tampa Tribune today announced, on a full page, that it could not endorse George W. Bush for re-election. In the first paragraph, it is carefully explained that while "disappointed by the performance of President George W. Bush", the Tribune is also "skeptical of the promises and positions of Sen. John Kerry". Skeptical? Is that all? With that in mind, it was really big of the Trib to devote about 5% of the editorial to Kerry's truly massive deficiencies on every issue, including Iraq.
But the Tampa Tribune gets it wrong in more than just once. "Before securing Afghanistan, Bush grew convinced that Iraq posed an imminent threat to America..." (emphasis added). This could be seen as an indication that the Trib editorial board spends way too much time reading Kerry campaign propaganda. From the 2003 Bush State of the Union address: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?" Any reasonable reader can see that Bush is clearly thinking that waiting for the threat to become imminent would be a big mistake. And maybe we could remember that Iraq was firing almost daily on U.S. & British planes, who were enforcing the "no-fly zones" imposed by the U.N. after the Gulf War. That's the United Nations. The international community.
From the Trib editorial: "There were no stockpiles of WMD and no link between Saddam and the terrorists that struck on 9/11." It might be just a little more prudent to say that stockpiles of WMD haven't been found yet. The Tribune editorial tries to lead us to believe it was just George W. Bush thinking that Iraq had WMD. There is an unending list of people and agencies that equally believed that Iraq had WMD, including, among many many others, CIA, British intelligence, Russian intelligence, John Kerry, John Edwards, as well as the U.N. That's the United Nations. The international community. It was their weapons inspectors that were tossed out of Iraq. Were they there because they thought there were no WMD? What were all those U.N. resolutions all about? That's United Nations resolutions. International community resolutions. Were the inspectors tossed out because Saddam figured they would never find anything? The questions that the Tribune and many other news organizations have failed to ask is why did all these people and agencies think there were WMD. And if Iraq truly had WMD at one point (and absolutely nobody denies that they did), where are they? Isn't that something we should be concerned with now? There are clear links to Baghdad and terrorism. Every terrorist in the world wasn't involved in 9/11. Does that mean we leave those terrorists alone? No. There was a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq. Iraq was proudly paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who blew themselves up. These are obvious, clear links to terrorism. There are more being discovered as time goes on.
In the cheap shot department: "When Gen. Eric Shinseki, then Army chief of staff, said that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure a postwar Iraq, his argument was dismissed and the general summarily pushed aside." On April 19, 2002, nearly a year before the above referenced statement, the announcement of Shinseki's coming retirement was published by the Washington Times. See: factcheck.org. Many in the Pentagon disagreed with Shinseki. So the Trib thinks Shinseki was right? What are the qualifications of the Tampa Tribune editorial board that would allow it to make a decision in a field like this? That qualified people can disagree on seriously important plans of action should be never more obvious than now to the esteemed Tampa Tribune editorial board. At least that what you say in your opening couple of paragraphs. If it's any help, Gen. Tommy Franks never asked for more troops. That was definitely an unfounded cheap shot that you should be ashamed of.
Now for a trip into the "You Can't Win" department. "Financially, the war has cost us $126 billion -- money that could have been better spent securing the homeland -- and is a major reason for the largest federal deficit in history." That it's the "largest federal deficit in history" is debatable, but if that same $126 billion had been spent on homeland defense or health care or interstate highways, would that not have been "a major reason for the largest federal deficit in history"? So what's the point here? Is the Trib editorial board against spending money to win a war? Or are they just against spending money to win a war in a way that's not how they would spend it? Again, what are their qualifications? Also in the "You Can't Win" department: "...we find ourselves today in an open-ended war that has taken the lives of 1,081 American servicemen and women, and wounded or maimed 7,862 more." Please define for me what a closed-ended war would be like. Maybe you were thinking that the war on terrorism would be like Grenada. In and out. Maybe the esteemed editorial board should re-assess the mind set of thousands of Jihadists. This war might take a while. They didn't know that? The G.I.'s that have made and are still making the sacrifices for the rest of us have my absolute admiration. In the war in Iraq that's so far lasted about a year and a half, those casualties are not unreasonably high. They are in fact unprecedentedly low. I guess the Tribune didn't know that.
Probably the most incredibly ridiculous tenet of this editorial was the statement: "We believe it is unwise to use our military to impose democracy on Arab countries, which would rather determine their own future." Really? Do you suppose that if the bloc of women voters in, say, Saudi Arabia should decide that there should be more government funded parking lots, that they would have any kind of a political influence? Oops, sorry, women don't vote there. They don't even drive there. They're property. The fact is there is nothing even approaching democracy in the mid-east except for Israel, Turkey (somewhat), and the two states that the U.S. is setting up, Afghanistan (actually central Asia) and now Iraq. For the people of those other countries in the area to determine their own futures is pure fantasy. Without intervention it just can't happen. Note to Tampa Tribune editorial board members: if you would just read your own paper, you'd know that too. What could you have possibly been thinking?
Strongly competing for the most ridiculous tenet: "...Bush has done little to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians..." Try to imagine what peace would look like between the Palestinians and Israelis. If you can, you're a dreamer. This has been going on for decades and of course there is no solution in sight. The Palestinians have made it clear that their aim is to eliminate the state of Israel. It's apparently their part in the Jihadist war. Refusing to talk to Arafat was the absolute correct course of action by Bush.
Talking about Bush's spending ways is certainly justified. He's clearly allowed the Congress to spend too much without any ramifications. No vetos, not even much jawboning. The Bush tax cuts however, were a major factor in the recovery from the combination of the dotcom failures and 9-11. Over time we'll see the benefits again and again. Job growth is a matter of how to interpret the statistics. There are more people working now than ever before. That doesn't sound bad. When I hear somebody from Nebraska say that their job has been "outsourced" to India, I have to wonder about buggy whip manufacturers in the 1920's, and the slide rule manufacturers in the 1970's. The needs of consumers change over the years, and we're going though a really big change right now. Is that George W. Bush's fault too? What about the Honda, Nissan and Mercedes cars now made in the U.S.A.? Those jobs have been "insourced". There are things we do better and there are things that India might do better. It shouldn't be part of the federal government to decide which things are which. The market place will sort it out.
Yes, it's true that Bush has endorsed a mission to Mars. And he's come out in favor of a missile defense system. In the middle of the "Cold War", Kennedy came out for an extreme effort to go to the moon. A really big deal, but little or no strategic value, just beat the Soviets. I remember it as a very inspiring thing to most Americans, a "we can do it" kind of thing. The money being spent on the Cold War was huge, and rightfully so. The money being spent on the moon shots was also huge, and also rightfully so. The trips to the moon were watched by nearly everyone. Apollo 13 wasn't just a movie. It was real and it actually did bring America together, rooting for the Astronauts, who were really in serious need of some cheering. But we were rooting for America too. Everybody doesn't work for the Tampa Tribune. We work in very diverse industries, among which is the space industry in Florida. I don't think we should support a mission to Mars just because there's an industry here in Florida, but there is something of a precedent for it. It would be good for the country. The missile defense program? Can anybody imagine the huge noise that would come about if there was a missile attack on the U.S. and no way to defend against it? It was actually illegal to create a missile defense system here before Bush said he was done with the system that allowed Moscow to have a defense but not one here in the U.S. If the defense system isn't perfect just yet, that's not a show stopping problem. It's still a work in progress. If ten missiles are incoming and only two are stopped, why is that bad? It may be all we can do right now. Would it be better to stop none? And lets remember the rant of the Tribune, it's a "throwback that would be nice to have". Throwback? One really has to wonder what these people are thinking. Sure there are other threats, but right now, North Korea has the capability to hit our west coast with their nuclear tipped missiles. Let's not even think about China. That's not a good thing, and we certainly should be able to make the attempt to defend ourselves against any kind of threat.
The "Patriot Act" leaves a lot to be desired, no question. However, unlike your claim, Bush didn't pass it, th U.S. Congress did with Bush's urging and approval. There are 535 people in the U.S. Congress & Senate, some of them endorsed by the Tribune, who were involved in the debate and eventual passage of the "Patriot Act". It definitely needs a little tuning up, but the basic idea of it is right as the Trib well knows. Is the secrecy being used now more than the secrecy that was used during WWII? I don't think so. It's not been since WWII that our very towns and cities have been at such risk. Does anybody doubt that? Deep down would you be surprised to find another attack had happened while you slept? This is far more serious business than most on the left would lead you to believe. It will never again be possible to consider any of this a mere "nuisance", even though some would like to think that. I'd prefer to leave my head out of the sand just now.
Besides the White House, Republicans control the House and the Senate and all committee chairs. But rather than reach across the aisle, this president has deepened the divide in Congress, where Republican leaders have uninvited Democrats from conference committees where differences are reconciled. We would not condone such behavior from Democrats and shouldn't accept it from Republicans. Alright then, go after the people who actually did those things. Or is it the opinion of the esteemed editorial board that everything that happens is Bush's fault. Did Bush reach out to the ultra left wing Ted Kennedy on the subject of education? And then what happened? Who was at fault there? Who was slamming doors on whom? No comment there I guess.
People view Bush as a man with strong convictions. And while he's clearly convinced of the rightness of his ways, that doesn't mean he's always right. Well of course not. Just like the Tampa Tribune editorial board is convinced of the rightness of their ways, that doesn't mean they're always right. So what kind of a statement is that? Strong convictions would be bad? And exactly who would be "always right"? This sort of argument means nothing, and it was frivolous of the Tampa Tribune editorial board to even bring it up.
The Tampa Tribune has done its readers an unbelievably disingenuous disservice by deciding to opt out of the 2004 presidential election. Every voter knows, or should know by this time, that there are vast differences between the candidates Bush and Kerry. While the Tampa Tribune is too gutless to decide between two hugely differing presidential candidates, the voters should know that there is a difference between the two that would eventually leave an unbelievably lasting impression on the populace. I believe that most of them know. I'm sure that I know.
How short sighted of the editorial board to say: No decision.
just a thought. bill brower, 23-Oct-2004
![[DIR]](../../../icons/back.gif){kind=icon}
Back to Index Back to Home Page