One of my good friends lives in Colorado. She and her husband are both Army veterans. They have a young teenage daughter. I’ve been e-mailing her and pleading with her to help turn Colorado blue for Kerry. Here’s one of our exchanges:

as for all the military stuff…well I think my daughter should serve…. like in Germany every citizen serves for 2 years…wouldn’t need a draft if we had that….

I actually agree with you, to a point. I think 2 years service is a good enough idea, but I’d do it this way: You have to serve two years to earn the right to vote. Also, that service doesn’t have to be military; could be Americorps, volunteer work, etc. But I’m firmly against a military draft. Even the military doesn’t want it — ask the generals, they prefer a volunteer force (better morale, better trained, better qualified).

so we wouldn’t need a draft if Clinton hadn’t cut our military down to a toothpick…..

Now, who went and told you that, Rush Limbaugh? As for the “devastation” of our military. When Clinton took office, in 1992, the budget for the Department of Defense was $298.4 billion dollars. Here’s a look at the Defense Department’s budget throughout the Clinton years:

1994 $281.6 billion (-5.6%)

1995 $272.1 billion (-3.4%)

1996 $265.8 billion (-2.3%)

1997 $270.5 billion (+1.8%)

1998 $268.5 billion (-0.7%)

1999 $274.9 billion (+2.4%

2000 $294.5 billion (+7.1%)

So, Clinton lowered the budget four times and raised it three times. I guess that’s the “toothpick” you’re referring to. But by the time Clinton leaves, the budget is almost back to Bush’s level.

But all this belies a point, which is: what does the budget have to do with the number of people who join the military? You say we wouldn’t need a draft if not for Clinton, but it’s not like military budget cuts mean that the Army is laying off soldiers. If you’re in a time of peace, you should expect the military enrollment to drop and therefore the need for all that budget as well. Besides, trimming the waste from the military budget helped us to have the first budget surplus in decades.

I seem to remember you also disliking Clinton for his draft-dodging during Vietnam. So where does that put Lt. Bush of the Texas Air National Guard on your list?

that is my biggest topic is our military…and I know Bush has done some things like extend contracts…well let’s go back…when my husband and I got out his Dad did that…to us…the first time we went in….to Kuwait…so all Presidents have that option….

My theory is if the war were done right — go into Afghanistan and take out terrorists, instead of going into Iraq with no plan for no good reason with too few troops — then we wouldn’t need more of our troops because we’d have done a better job and we’d have a real coalition and more UN and NATO troops helping support our efforts.

no I don’t agree with this war….but I do think we had to take Saddam out….we just should have done it before now….like 14 years ago when we were in….

Well, that’s another discussion. Personally, I don’t think we needed to take Saddam out at all. He had no WMD’s. He had no missiles that could fire past his borders. His army was threadbare. He had no-fly zones in the North and South. Even his neighbors — Syria, Jordan, Iran — were so unconcerned about him that they wouldn’t join our coalition.

I don’t think we should have taken Saddam out 12 years ago either. We should have supported the people of Iraq when they wanted to take him out. Didn’t we learn anything from Vietnam? We can’t just go into a country and stomp our military around and try to build good little McDemocracies, like it was a franchise of USA Inc.

Yes, Saddam was a bad guy and treated his people like shit. So, why are his people shooting at us now that we freed them? I think it’s because nobody likes foreigners telling them what they can do in their own country.

Should we liberate countries because their leaders oppress their peoples? Hmm. What would we have thought if in the 1830’s France occupied America, forced us to free our slaves and treat women, Indians, Chinese, and Negores as equals, destroyed our infrastructure, brought in their own companies to profit from our rebuilding and resources, sacked our leaders and replaced them with their old business partners without even asking us to vote on them. I imagine that we would’ve formed quite a little insurgency ourselves.

People must fight for and evolve their own democracies; we can’t just impose it on them.

it’s hard to judge what Rosco has done because of 9-11….maybe we should go back and see what we did after Pearl Harbor….didn’t we retaliatate?…didn’t the country pull together to protect ourselves?…..

The day after Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt convened a commission to get to the bottom of the intelligence failures that allowed the Japanese to sneak-attack us. The day after 9/11… Bush did nothing. Months later, the 9/11 families demanded a commission, and Bush opposed it. Bowing to pressure, he finally caved in on the commission, but limited its schedule and budget. Then Bush wanted Henry Kissinger to chair it. The families revolted and Kissinger was removed. After more pressure, Bush finally funded it and gave it the time it deserved, but refused to let his senior staff testify. Bowing to more pressure, he finally let Condoleezza Rice testify, but not himself. Finally, after more pressure, he said he’d meet with the commission, but only for an hour, only with Dick Cheney by his side, only if the meeting was at the Oval Office, and only if nothing in the meeting was recorded or under oath.

But you can’t compare Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Pearl Harbor was an act of warfare by a sovereign nation committed by a military operation. When Pearl Harbor happened, we banded together and fought the Japanese army that did it. When 9/11 happened, did we band together and fight the Saudi Arabian people and government that sponsored it? At first we did go after Osama in Afghanistan, but in Bush’s lust to go after the guy that tried to kill his Daddy, he let the enemy get away!

now we just want the Walmart to be open…”Never Forget” was the 9-11 slogan….most already have….and yes I know 9-11 and Saddam are two different topics…. but still the middle east has always been a problem….

You’re right about the bunching, because Saddam and Osama are so different as to be unrecognizable. Yes, there always has been a problem in the Middle East, and that problem is Radical Muslim Fundamentalism. The only thing Saddam hated more than America was Radical Muslim Fundamentalism. Saddam’s Iraq was a secular tyranny; he hated terrorists! Saddam was worried about the radical Shia majority in Iraq as a threat to his power. Now we’ve taken him out and the radical Shia majority is now running the country. You know, the ones who hate us and bombed our buildings on September 11th.

out of all this I think the best speaker at any of the conventions was Laura Bush…she really impressed me….must be the mother in her…or the wife who is obviously loves her family….but she was good…

We must have been watching two different conventions. Laura Bush reminded me of a 1950’s Leave it to Beaver housewife. Mind your man and all that shit. Ugh.

the twins annoyed me…

But at least the twins didn’t have any “spin” to them at all — they were real. Spoiled, rich, bubbleheaded, party-girl debutantes.

and Kerry’s wife…well she rubbed me wrong….you know I’m big on loyalty and maybe you know the answer….wasn’t she married before?…..and to a Senator…?….died in a plane crash?…so how long have they been married?

Lemme guess, you don’t like Hillary Clinton either. What is it about strong, independent, career-minded women that you don’t like?

Yes, she was married to Senator John Heinz, R-PA. He died in an airplane crash in April 1991. Theresa married him in 1966, so they were married 25 years. She married John Kerry in 1995. So, is four years long enough to grieve a dead husband, or should Theresa never gotten married again? What is this loyalty you speak of? Widows not remarrying?

….she just doesn’t seem to have anyone except her interests in the game….scares me a bit….

Don’t be afraid. Theresa’s philanthropic work has included protecting the environment, improving education and the lives of young children, reducing the cost of prescription drugs, promoting the arts and helping women achieve financial economic security. She’s certainly done more good things for more people than Laura Bush ever has. And Theresa’s never killed anyone with her car, either.

I must be getting old because to me the whole political process is crap…more people will watch the Emmy’s than the conventions…most don’t vote….

I think it is because we don’t get out and talk about these things like you and I are doing. Remember when there was just ABC, NBC, and CBS, and if the president gave a speech or there was a political convention or debate, it was on all three channels, and you had no choice but to watch. Now our media treats them like it’s just a formality but that we really shouldn’t care.

Another reason I think politics is crappy these days is because only squeeky clean people can run. Clinton had economic prosperity, a surplus, peace in Israel and Ireland — the 90’s rocked! — yet he’s always going to be remembered for a blowjob from a fat girl. That one blowjob cost Gore the election and gave us the Bushit we’re suffering with now.

That’s why we get these dry, boring guys like Gore and Kerry. Someone exciting who’s actually lived a life can’t run.

and if you ask my husband he just wants the economy to go back to what it was before 9-11……..

Yeah, like when Clinton was in office?

and he doesn’t vote…the only thing he listens to is Greenspan when he comes out to raise interst rates…and really isn’t money what drives the whole thing?……

Since 1960, you can trace every economic indicator there is — home ownership, interest rates, unemployment, the stock market, new businesses, bankruptcy filings, etc. — and by every measure, the economy does better when Democrats are in office. Ask him to trace how well his company did and how well his stores did during Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. I’ll bet I’m right.

But if he doesn’t want to vote, that’s his prerogative. I’d rather he not vote than vote for Bush. But if he really wants the pre-9/11 economy back, he should vote for Kerry. You know, the guy who actually went to war, fulfilled his commitment to the armed services, and is a decorated hero.

as for tax cuts….I think the rich people should get those…they’ve paid in more…and most millionaires will invest that money in companies and put more back into the economy….middle class americans will just spend it at the mall….which is great for a month…but investors are looking down the road….and people with money think that way….

Wrong, wrong, wrong. First of all, rich people get more benefit from taxes than do poor people. Who paid for those roads that all the shipments travel on? Who funds the police and fire departments that protect the businesses from looting and arson? Who funds the Treasury and the Courts that provide the means for commerce to continue and the method of solving business disputes? Rich people should pay more taxes because they use more of the infrastructure.

Second, most millionaires do not let their money “trickle-down” as you suggest (it didn’t work in the Reagan era, and it won’t work now.) What’s happening now is that Bush is shifting the tax burden from wealth to work. Rich folks make tons of money by just having tons of money. It gets stored in the Cayman Islands and in Swiss Banks. They dodge their rightful share of their tax burden while deriving the benefit of the tax system.

Finally, middle class people spending at the mall is exactly what you want to keep this economy rolling. This is a consumer economy. It doesn’t matter how many or how cheaply XYZ Co. produces widgets if XYZ Co. pays their people so poorly they can’t afford to buy a widget!

I’m glad your passionate about the election this year…..and I will vote…we have some close local races goinig on….like Pete Coors for Senate….just don’t know about President….but as they say…if you’re not a part of the process then how can you criticize it?….

About voting for president, just think of these things:

You’re not voting for first lady. Leave your opinion of Laura and Theresa out of it.

No honorable military man who’s earned a Silver Star in combat is going to be a panty-waist when it comes to supporting our military or taking it to the terrorists. I thought that Kerry being a decorated vet and Bush being a draft-dodging blow-monkey deserter from the Guard would have locked up your vote right there.

Think of this election as a referendum on whether Bush should get to keep his job. Think of the basics: economy, health care, education, and the military. Would you give Bush a passing grade on even one of those subjects?

Forget about Bill Clinton. Sheesh, he’s been gone for four years already.

Remember Bush’s right-wing Christian agenda and imperialistic foreign policy. Do you think your daughter should be sitting through a Christian prayer in school? If (god forbid) she were to get pregnant, should the government be forcing her to have a baby? Should your daughter be drafted to fight in a war in Iraq? If your daughter were to die in a battle to secure Fallujah, would it have been worth her sacrifice? Suppose your daughter comes home from college with a girlfriend, should the government prevent them from getting married?

If you’re scared about voting for a Democrat, remember that the Senate and House will probably still be under Republican control (especially if you vote for Pete Coors). Maybe they’ll balance each other out, like after 1994 when Clinton was president but the Republicans controlled Congress, and we’ll get some more moderate policymaking.

If Bush wins, he’s not going to have to worry about re-election and he’ll have the Congress and the Supreme Court on his side. He’ll get even more right-wing and fundamentalist Christian than he is now. And I guarantee a military draft and another war (Syria? Iran? North Korea?).

    ____________________________________________________________________

   |                                                                    

_  | "RADICAL" RUSS BELVILLE | Read More at http://radicalruss.net/blog/  

  | Portland, Oregon U.S.A. | Permission is granted for reprint of this      

  | © 2004 by Russ Belville | post, as long as this footer is included.