Sort of on-topic, sorta-not, apologies if this is inappropriate here.

Les, are you voting FOR Kerry, or are you voting AGAINST Bush?

I only ask because I’ve been reading your site for over a year, and I don’t see much in the way of Pro-Kerry, but a LOT of Anti-Bush.

...and to show that I’m off-and-on, where the hell did the captchas go?  I finally get settled and a decent ‘net connection and they’re suddenly GONE!  And I was looking forward to besting them!

There’s nothing wrong with voting AGAINST Bush. Hell, I would if I could.

But back to the post: here here Les! I couldn’t possibly have said it any more eloquently myself—especially that last sentence!

Look at the byline fellas! That was Brock saying those things, though I share a similar sentiment.

In response to your first question, Ben, I’d have to say I’m voting against Bush and for the guy with the best chance of defeating him (Kerry). It’s true that I don’t tend to post a lot of pro-Kerry stuff and that in part is because I’ve never been much of a “rah rah” type anyway, but also because Kerry doesn’t exactly get my mojo working either. I don’t have a lot to complain about with Kerry (at least not yet), but there’s not a lot about him that I feel compelled to shout from the rooftops either.

As for the captchas, it’s a feature in 1.1 that registered users no longer have to enter them in order to post a comment. A minor perk for signing up.

Les - Maybe you could throw some campaign gear in the SEB store.

Front: Vote Bush?

Back: “What the fuck is wrong with you people?”

Bush has reached a point where he is willing to say whatever it takes to win this election.  It’s very much reminiscent of his performance before the 2000 election.  The people that fall for this bait-and-switch again really should be ashamed.  Although, looking closely at Bush’s proposed changes to ‘church and state’ laws, there may be a loophole in there for SEB to obtain non-tax church exemption.

Bush Campaign Promises 2000

Oh, bloody hell… sorry for missing the byline.  [Thanks for answering, tho]

Brock, same question. 

I was saying, with ahhh words… words are what I was using to say…. things aren’t going as I planned in Iraq. I say Iraq… that country in the middle east we tried to bomb into the stone age. No offense to any ne… nean… Fred Flinstones. What was I saying? Oh yeah, Vote for me, because I’m so dumb I’m cute.

That’s funny.

BTW, Brock, what is your source for the Napalm reference?

Not that I think its impossible, but I would have guessed they would be too wary of the negative press to use that.

Concerning Kerry/the US: after you got 4 years of ‘excitement’, wouldn’t a boring but competent President just what you need?

Good one, Brock.
I remember being really disgusted with Bill Clinton after the ML affair… not because care about his cigars (eeew!) but because it’s bad marketing and I thought it would let the R’s roll in with some dipstick.  Darned if it didn’t happen!

What’s right with Kerry besides him not being Bush?  That’s almost enough by itself.  But he has actually been shot at in some foreign land, so he has a clue what that’s like.  Conceivably he might connect that memory to what he’ll do in Iraq.

(Some mouthpiece on Fox the other day asked: “Why is it OK for Bill Clinton to dodge the draft but not Dick Cheney, huh?”  Unfortunately the guest didn’t respond, “One word: Chickenhawk!”)

He seems to be able to work with others (as opposed to a certain person’s “my way or the highway” attitude) which is a plus.  Oddly, this is where his reputation as a “flip-flopper” comes from: he is able to compromise.  Kerry also appears to generally support constitutional rights for humans (as opposed to corporations.)

One more thing… he has actually voted against spending bills in the past.  I can’t recall Bush vetoing any spending bills that landed on his desk.

Having said that, Kerry is towards the other end of the annoyance spectrum from what we have now. Conservatives say, “We don’t care about your problems - you need to be a Christian and support corporate profits!”  Liberals say, “The government cares and can solve all your problems!” (shudder)

“This book-thingie says my daddy’s a chimp too?”

Some time in the late 60s or early 70s I started voting against presidential candidates (mixed record on picks.) George W turned me off on day one. Perhaps, in part because, I had him confused with the Silverado Bush—or maybe I knew he was the BCCI Bush, I can’t recall. The bottom line was that I just didn’t see much there, and he has done nothing to improve my opinion.

Kerry will have a difficult time fulfilling all of his campaign promises. That’s pretty much par for the course. Bush fulfilled few if any of the promises that he made to the voters. However, his major contributors are very happy (except those that have done the perp walk.)

(some)

Sorry Les, that you had to take some flak for something you didn’t write, but readers are progressively learning to check the byline.

You’ve asked a fair question Ben, and I wish I could say that it isn’t necessary to tear down one candidate in order to lift up another, but this is America in the 21st century. We have no candidates that the eloquence of a “I have a dream” and “Ask not what your country can do for you…” type speech can help identify. We may have individuals capable of great leadership but we do not search for them. Instead we elect former coke-abusing cheerleaders and actors and such and so it becomes a lesson in how to get the lesser of two evils elected.

Unfortunately I don’t have enough information on Kerry yet, though I have years of personal experience with the shortcomings of Bush. So while your point is a good one, I’m afraid this is the way the game is currently played. I would even go as far as to say that the present political system limits the good a politician can do and encourages negative and self-serving aims. If you want to talk about dirty tricks and negative spin, the Bush GOP uses them by the handfuls. I feel it’s only fair for them to be called on their machinations.

I still am not answering your question the way I want to, but maybe it will come to me later or someone else will address it better.

You make some very good points DOF. Let’s hope other voters come across similar wisdom.

LOL Spocko (and ReaZ).

Ingolfson, there are several references I saw, though the one link I included seems not to work unless you copy and paste it.

Here then, are some others:

So there was a very big push into southern Iraq for that purpose. We are at a facility just outside of Basra, which we cannot name because it still could come under attack from Iraqi artillery or Scud missiles. It is estimated that 14 percent of the entire world’s oil supply flows through this region.

There is a lookout there, a hill referred to as Safwan Hill, on the Iraqi side of the border. It was filled with Iraqi intelligence gathering. From that vantage point, they could look out over all of northern Kuwait.

It is now estimated the hill was hit so badly by missiles, artillery and by the Air Force, that they shaved a couple of feet off it. And anything that was up there that was left after all the explosions was then hit with napalm. And that pretty much put an end to any Iraqi operations up on that hill.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/21/otsc.irq.savidge/

Here’s yet another Vietnam-era flashback: Marine fighter pilots and commanders newly returned from Iraq have confirmed dropping dozens of napalm-type bombs to clear the path to Baghdad during the war. Col. Randolph Alles who commanded Marine Air Group 11 told the San Diego Union-Tribune, “We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches. Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video. He added, “The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect.”

The Pentagon officials trying to squirm it’s way out of the situation – they had repeatedly denied using napalm during the war – by claiming that the “Mark 77 firebombs” are “remarkably similar” to napalm weapons, but technically not the same.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/2003/08/001179.html

American jets killed Iraqi troops with firebombs –similar to the controversial napalm used in the Vietnam War – in March and April as Marines battled toward Baghdad.

Marine Corps fighter pilots and commanders who have returned from the war zone have confirmed dropping dozens of incendiary bombs near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River. The explosions created massive fireballs.

“We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches,” said Col. Randolph Alles in a recent interview. He commanded Marine Air Group 11, based at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, during the war. “Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.

“They were Iraqi soldiers there. It’s no great way to die,” he added. How many Iraqis died, the military couldn’t say. No accurate count has been made of Iraqi war casualties.

The bombing campaign helped clear the path for the Marines’ race to Baghdad.

During the war, Pentagon spokesmen disputed reports that napalm was being used, saying the Pentagon’s stockpile had been destroyed two years ago.

Apparently the spokesmen were drawing a distinction between the terms “firebomb” and “napalm.” If reporters had asked about firebombs, officials said yesterday they would have confirmed their use.

What the Marines dropped, the spokesmen said yesterday, were “Mark 77 firebombs.” They acknowledged those are incendiary devices with a function “remarkably similar” to napalm weapons.

“You can call it something other than napalm, but it’s napalm,” said John Pike, defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, a nonpartisan research group in Alexandria, Va.

Although many human rights groups consider incendiary bombs to be inhumane, international law does not prohibit their use against military forces. The United States has not agreed to a ban against possible civilian targets.

“Incendiaries create burns that are difficult to treat,” said Robert Musil, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a Washington group that opposes the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Musil described the Pentagon’s distinction between napalm and Mark 77 firebombs as “pretty outrageous.”

“That’s clearly Orwellian,” he added.

Before March, the last time U.S. forces had used napalm in combat was the Persian Gulf War, again by Marines.

During a recent interview about the bombing campaign in Iraq, Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Jim Amos confirmed aircraft dropped what he and other Marines continue to call napalm on Iraqi troops on several occasions. He commanded Marine jet and helicopter units involved in the Iraq war and leads the Miramar-based 3rd Marine Air Wing.

Miramar pilots familiar with the bombing missions pointed to at least two locations where firebombs were dropped.

Before the Marines crossed the Saddam Canal in central Iraq, jets dropped several firebombs on enemy positions near a bridge that would become the Marines’ main crossing point on the road toward Numaniyah, a key town 40 miles from Baghdad.

Next, the bombs were used against Iraqis near a key Tigris River bridge, north of Numaniyah, in early April.

There were reports of another attack on the first day of the war.

Two embedded journalists reported what they described as napalm being dropped on an Iraqi observation post at Safwan Hill overlooking the Kuwait border.

Reporters for CNN and the Sydney (Australia) Morning Herald were told by unnamed Marine officers that aircraft dropped napalm on the Iraqi position, which was adjacent to one of the Marines’ main invasion routes.

Their reports were disputed by several Pentagon spokesmen who said no such bombs were used nor did the United States have any napalm weapons.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20030805-9999_1n5bomb.html

US Admits It Used Napalm in Iraq
American pilots dropped the controversial incendiary agent napalm on Iraqi troops during the advance on Baghdad. The attacks caused massive fireballs that obliterated several Iraqi positions.

The Pentagon denied using napalm at the time, but Marine pilots and their commanders have confirmed that they used an upgraded version of the weapon against dug-in positions. They said napalm, which has a distinctive smell, was used because of its psychological effect on an enemy.

A 1980 UN convention banned the use against civilian targets of napalm, a terrifying mixture of jet fuel and polystyrene that sticks to skin as it burns. The US, which did not sign the treaty, is one of the few countries that makes use of the weapon. It was employed notoriously against both civilian and military targets in the Vietnam war.

The upgraded weapon, which uses kerosene rather than petrol, was used in March and April, when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad.

“We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches,�? said Col. James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. “Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It’s no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect.�?A reporter from the Sydney Morning Herald who witnessed another napalm attack on March 21 on an Iraqi observation post at Safwan Hill, close to the Kuwaiti border, wrote the following day: “Safwan Hill went up in a huge fireball and the observation post was obliterated. ‘I pity anyone who is in there,’ a Marine sergeant said. ‘We told them to surrender.’�?

At the time, the Pentagon insisted the report was untrue. “We completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on April 4 , 2001,�? it said.

The revelation that napalm was used in the war against Iraq, while the Pentagon denied it, has outraged opponents of the war. “Most of the world understands that napalm and incendiaries are a horrible, horrible weapon,�? said Robert Musil, director of the organization Physicians for Social Responsibility. “It takes up an awful lot of medical resources. It creates horrible wounds.�? Musil said denial of its use “fits a pattern of deception [by the US administration].�?

The Pentagon said it had not tried to deceive. It drew a distinction between traditional napalm, first invented in 1942, and the weapons dropped in Iraq, which it calls Mark 77 firebombs.

http://www.alltoohuman.org/blogarchive/000062.html

There are many more sources, but these should do for a start. I can only imagine what being in the area of a Napalm style fire bomb explosion must be like. It would probably seem like being in hell.

Well, the last link is erroneously to a forum source. The correct link to what I posted is:

http://www.aljazeerah.info/News archives/2003 News archives/August/10 n/US Admits It Used Napalm in Iraq.htm

This one may need to be copied and pasted in order to view, as well.

Here’s another link some might find interesting. It’s a year old yet the information still relates to the ongoing debate concerning miscalculations as opposed to pre-calculations and manipulations.

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=19542

Thanks for the links, Brock.

As concerning ‘voting against someone’ - Heinlein once described it as the quickest way to get a reasonable choice if you are unsure of your preferences.

It would be kicking the greater evil out of office, even if nothing else.

I can only say I don’t want Bush to lead this country any longer.  I can also say I don’t see the wisdom, strength, and courage shining brightly in Kerry.  I’ll vote for Kerry because too many people with their heads up their butts are going to try to get Bush back in!!  But I hope that one of these days before I die someone will come along to lead this nation so that my grandkids and yours will learn what real leadership is!!

You know why I wonder as a non-American, I wonder why people actually vote for Bush.  What do they see in him?  I can’t imagine anyone like Bush ever managing to become Prime Minister of Canada.  I will grant the Premier of Alberta (the province I live in) Ralph Klein is quite similar to Bush.  Actually he’s kind of worse, he’s a guy who dropped out of high-school, is known to get drunk and assault homeless people, has said things such as that ranchers should have just “shot, shovelled and shut-up” regarding the mad cow issue (and he said this to the U.S. cattle man’s association).  However, though Ralph Klein is in a position of power, there would be no way in hell that he could ever garner enough support for federal office.  Why do people vote for Bush, can’t they tell that he’s at the very least somewhat incompetent (if indeed he did not have malicious intent underlying his policies)?

StinkAss,

Given a genuine democratic vote, it is axiomatic that everybody gets what the majority deserves.
—unquietmind.com

Brock, I had been wondering about the content of your next entry. Looks like you came loaded for bear this time. Thanks for the information on napalm and on the subtle difference between napalm weapons and the Mark 77. I was under the impression that we had stopped using such things in favor more humane weapons like precision iron bombs and Daisy Cutters.

A criticism I have heard repeatedly is that administration had no plan for postwar Iraq. I was buying off on that until I came across Naomi Klein’s article in the September issue of Harper’s*. The administration actually had two reconstruction plans, one favored by the neocons called the Year Zero plan and another prepared by State (quick and dirty elections, build some bases like we did the Philippines and let the IMF come in and mediate reconstruction.)

The neocon plan (call it Shock and Awe Phase Two or IMF heavy) was immediate and complete privatization of Iraq’s economy. Favored contractors would own Iraq’s resources and an unregulated free market economy would flourish.

When the invasion ended as quickly as it did, the administration opted for the Year Zero plan. One of the first things Bremer did after replacing Garner was to lay off workers and soldiers without providing pensions or severance pay.

There are many in Iraq who argue that these events are connected—that Bremer’s reforms were the largest factor leading to armed resistance.

The out of work soldiers and the businessmen threatened by our economic plans for Iraq didn’t go quietly. What followed is history unfolding. George W. was absolutely correct, he miscalculated what the “post war” conditions would be. I guess the necons take the role of Justin Timberlake.

Stink, this American is a also a bit mystified about other Americans voting for the man, but I will try to answer your question.

Our conservatives have become very good at presenting their own message while directing attention away from voices that they don’t want heard. They have a number of think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute to establish conservative positions and to train young politicians. For example, if you look at http://www.cato.org/ you will find a position on the recent economic data released by the Census Bureau. (We can’t spend our way out of problems yadah yadah.)

They employ market research types who use focus groups to find hot button words and phrases suitable for framing issues in way that tells people what they are comfortable hearing, or plays on their prejudices or their fears. They are very good at this as well as conveying images rather than facts. They have allies in talk radio and the cable news channels (Fox in particular) who repeat the message of the day over and over and over.

As a result about half of the voters believe that George W is someone you would comfortable chatting with, that he is looking out for us by cutting our taxes, God has a friend in the White House (select audience), too many government regualtions stand in the way of progress, liberals are elitist/secularist/socialistic/etc. and on and on. Not everyone who who supports Bush buys off on the whole litany, but there is sufficient buy off of enough of the list to make this a close election. 

*Articles in Harper’s are not available on line. However, I did find a link to some of Klein’s work, which appears to cover some of the same material.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Archive/0,5673,-991,0.html

Brock, actually, you’ve answered my question better than anyone I’ve talked to yet, so hey. 

I can agree that there are no stellar candidates like there were in the days of yore.  That’s a fault of our current political system, I’m afraid… but I don’t have a solution to that, so in essence, I’m kinda like you—doing the best I can with what I have.

I was reflecting on what you said today, when it struck me that I did the same thing in 2000.  Whereas you’ve dealt with years of Bush, I had dealt with years of Gore, and wasn’t about to let him run the country (though I did vote for Clinton in 96).  It’s no crime to be sure.

The only reason I brought this up:  I have yet to see anyone really say anything positive about Kerry… EVERY left-leaner/liberal I know, when asked why they’re voting for Kerry, tells me what Bush has done, what he didn’t do, his alleged IQ, small penis, etc.    In most other elections, though, I usually hear SOMETHING positive about both candidates.

Just this morning I heard on the news that Bush partisans were comparing Bush’s leadership surrounding Iraq with that of Winston Churchill’s during WW2.

If what I heard is accurate (as my recollection of the news item), my exasperation with spin and/or ignorance is once again raised to new heights. Not that I’m the brightest person in the world, but this compasison is far fetched to say the least.

Other than Bush’s hard drinking (reformed alcoholic or not), there is little similarity between the two figures. I grant that Churchill was also an imperialist and believed in the grandeur of a strong British Empire complete with all its colonies, in this way Bush could be seen as following in his footsteps. This was not however, the vein of the analogy.

Churchill proved to be among the world’s most eloquent war time leaders capable of galvanizing an entire nation, something Bush hasn’t been able to do - not to mention his unfortunate lack of vocabulary.

Needless to say the American people are hardly unanimous about their role in Iraq. Do people really believe this bunk?

It is scary to think that some will actually believe this comparison.

Sorry Les, that you had to take some flak for something you didn’t write, but readers are progressively learning to check the byline.

Not sure what you’re apologizing for. Haven’t gotten any flack from your entry as of yet near as I can tell and I think it’s a good sign that your writing is occasionally mistaken for my own. It shows me that your input is pretty much in line with what I might have said myself and thus a good fit for SEB. No complaints here.

I’ve got a buddy who still e-mails me regularly, sends all kinds of pro-Bush, pro-Family, pro-Christian stuff.  I never respond to his messages on this stuff, because it would do absolutely no good.  Why ruin a fifteen year friendship over a difference of political opinion?

I do find it disturbing however, that supporters of Bush are so fervent, almost to the point of mindlessness.  With a president like this, it all seems to hinge on the same kind of faith it takes to believe in God, and you don’t dare look too deeply into the record of such an administration, lest that faith be shattered.  Bushies spend more time trying to point the finger at Kerry’s flaws, or spinning the arguments against him than they do actively shoring up his strengths.  Hmm, wonder why that is?

As my old CC in boot camp used to say, “You can’t polish a turd.”

What Brock Said!

Geek(yellow-dog Democrat)Mom