Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Critical Thinking… (Kerry & Defense)

Critical thinking is a skill that most liberals will claim conservatives don’t possess. They snub their noses at ‘black and white’ thinking (Reagan & Bush), and think themselves to be nuanced (Carter & Kerry) because of their vast understanding of gray matter… They rarely take a stand on anything of consequence because they are too intelligent and open-minded to actually have a solid belief…a solid belief requires the acknowledgement of good and evil….hence the dreaded black and white. The only time they allow themselves this luxury is with conservatives themselves –who, of course, are evil.

(I have taken four critical thinking classes of some sort –Justice, Social Reasoning, Medical Ethics and Critical Thinking –and have gotten A’s in all of them. As a matter-of-fact, the professor of my Justice class told me he ‘wished there was a grade above A that he could give’…’and that I ‘was the backbone of his class that semester’… How could this be? A right-wing-nut-job with a 4.0 in higher education critical thinking?)

I will not regurgitate all the various things that John Kerry has said, over the past 10 years, regarding Iraq and Saddam Hussein…if you want to refresh your memory, you can go to this website and re-read his vast nuance for yourself...It would be a nice preface for this post.

What I am able to gather (from what he is saying now) is that he agrees that Saddam was a threat, that he would give the President the same authorization all over again, that it is good and better for America that Saddam is no longer in power BUT that he disagrees with THE WAY the President carried it out. He thinks we should have a larger coalition, that there should have been a UN resolution for the use of force (not just the threat of it), and that we needed a ‘plan to win the peace’ before we went. Is this correct? So this, to me, means that other than these things, he is in agreement with the Administration that this needed to be done –he agreed with the motive just not the execution.

Now a critical thinker would look at these things –and of course we can’t take them at face value…that would be black and white- and make certain assumptions from Kerry’s past behavior (we will even leave his words out of this) and from the world backdrop at the time we went to war...

On August 2, 1990 Saddam invaded Kuwait and the UN immediately called on Saddam to withdraw. On November 29, 1990 the UN authorized the use of force against Iraq (even Syria voted in favor) and on January 12, 1991 the US Congress voted in favor of US troops being used in offensive operations against Iraq (all this Under President Bush 41). John Kerry voted AGAINST this. Approximately 29 Nations were involved (including France, Germany & Canada) –comprising what John Kerry today calls a ‘vast coalition’…this war certainly passed Kerry’s 'Global Test' –or- the 'truth standard'…and yet, he voted against it…?

When Operation Iraqi Freedom was being brought to fruition, this President also obtained a UN resolution that demanded Saddam comply or ‘serious consequences’ would ensue. The resolution was unanimous. The President then obtained a vote from Congress that authorized the use of force in Iraq. Both John Kerry and John Edwards voted for that authorization. Lest we think that it was only for the threat of force –we will refer to a Kerry quote…in October of 2002 he said, “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”

This is indeed consistent with John Kerry’s position today –as he still claims that Saddam was a threat and should have been removed. Removing from our memory the fact that he voted AGAINST Operation Dessert Shield –when it encompassed all of his own guidelines, we will continue with the specifications he has laid out for Operation Iraqi Freedom…

-‘Vast Coalition’: The fact that we don’t have the ‘vast coalition created by his own father for the first Gulf War’ is a complaint frequently heard from the Kerry camp (irony). The more we learn about the Oil for Food scandal within the United Nations –the less validity this argument retains. France, Germany and Russia were all ‘on the take’ from Saddam. A top Iraqi leader under Saddam reported that he had made a deal with a top French official that would ensure a Security Council veto against anything the US proposed. We are talking BILLIONS of dollars. Saddam was using Oil for Food to bribe governments in other countries…with the ultimate intention of dismantling the UN sanctions. It is even now reported that France (and Russia) was selling Saddam weapons –even talking about sales for the elusive WMDs. This is the finding of the Duelfer Report. It would seem that even Christ himself couldn’t have persuaded Germany, France and Russia into the coalition –they knew that a defeat in Baghdad would not only end their financial windfall, but expose their illegal dealings with Saddam’s regime.

-‘Plan to win the Peace’: The second complaint against the President’s crusade is that he had no plan to win the peace after Baghdad fell. Now, other than the fact that any war material you read says that no battle plan withholds the actual battle, people seem to forget a key element in OIF…the 4th Infantry Division. The Plan was not only to have the troops race north at lightning speed through the desert up to Baghdad, BUT ALSO to have the 4th ID and thousands of British troops descend through Turkey from the north. The plan was to crush the insurgents like a vice –leaving them no place to run. You may remember that Turkey said no at the last minute and the 4th ID sat in Kuwait as the Bathe party loyalists and insurgents fled to the north to blend in with the population. There WAS a plan to win the peace –it was thwarted by Turkey who caved under the Nations feigning self-righteousness while pocketing the Iraqi people’s food money.

So we see that it is not a GOP myth or Republican spin that John Kerry has no consistency or backbone in matters of war and/or National Security. He has proved it in both word and deed –time and time again. His complaints against this Administration are hollow in light of the aforementioned circumstances (that he was/is well aware of) –and glaringly insincere given his vote against the first Gulf War (with all conditions of ‘truth’ and the ‘global test’ being present). You can say that you hate Bush and want a new President –that’s fine and honest…but don’t pretend that John Kerry has not earned his titles as the Waffler and the Flip-Flopper. Given this model—his record vs. his own words now…when would it be OK to use force? I will tell you…”we will attack swiftly and purposefully AFTER EACH ATTACK” John Kerry… …Scary.

11 comments:

Subsunk said...

ALa71,

You are indeed intelligent and beautiful. I am impressed with your logic and reasoning, and I wish more folks had your attitude. You do a good job. I check your site often.

I am also worried that the misleading propaganda spouted by the media today has left most Americans without access to truth and facts regarding the world today. It is very ironic that their idea of evil is the fascist movements of Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy. Ironic because those regimes came to, and held onto their power primarily through manipulation of their news organizations and media of the time. Joseph Goebbels and Arthur Sulzberger of the NY Times and the editors of the LA Times, UK's Guardian, and most TV news organizations in the US all subscribe to the same theory of power and control. "I know better than you poor simpletons do about what is good for you, and I'll lie out both ends of my body to get my way and prove it to you. And if you don't agree with me, I'll smear your name and incite violence against you". So familiar that WWII vets would surely think it was 1938 again.

Guess you had to be there to really appreciate how evil manipulation of the media can be for innocent human life. And over 50 million dead people and 7 years later, we were finally able to stop fighting for a few years.

Keep it up, dear. You and your sisters at the top of your page are what keeps me going from day to day. The smartest blondes on the planet.

Subsunk

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
free0352 said...

You are absalutely correct Ala, you are indeed a smart cookie. This again demonstrates evidence that John Kerry is willing to say anything to get ellected and is moraly bankrupt, 100% lacking in principles...along with the majority members of his party who openly advocate organised theft. The only "use of force" you'll ever see a Democrat not object to is the force used to tax one into oblivion

McWizard said...

I do not believe John Kerry has the political courage to be an effective "Critical Thinker".
After September 11, 2001 President Bush was confronted by dynamics that the previous President left unattended.
One of the major reasons Al Qaeda was given so much support within the Saudi sphere was the United States continued presence in Saudi Arabia. In 1992 The Saudi Royals were demanding we leave. They could not police Al Qaeda while we were there and keep face. Pakistan was handcuffed by our Saudi occupation as well.
The tasks needed to deal with Al Qaeda were as follows,
Remove the Taliban from Power and establish a fruitful alliance with the Afghans.
Remove our troops from Saudi Arabia. This would create a power vacuum Saddam would exploit but it would give the Arabs and the Pakistanis the political breathing room to effectively police Al Qaeda. Saddam had to go.
The President went to the UN and received the legal authority to depose Saddam. He knew the UN would not actually act on 1441 but they did not believe President Bush had the courage to. Once the Oil for Food scam was discovered we see why the Security Council members involved opposed the action.
Once Afghanistan was stabilized it was time to leave Saudi Arabia. We pushed our troops into Kuwait and immediately Pakistan began to attack Al Qaeda.
Either we had to invade Iraq in April or leave our troops in Kuwait through the summer and go in November. This would give Saddam time for better preparations and to gather more high tech weapons from the French and Russians. It was a disaster scenario to do so.

What is the plan to win the peace?
Now that Saddam is gone let's look at the fruits of this action.
Saddam gone.
Oil for Food scam exposed.
Dozens of Al Qaeda captured and killed in Pakistan, Arabia and Iraq.
Libya disarmed.
Syria distancing itself from terrorists.
The vast majority of the Iraqi population allied with us.
Peace and security seems much more likely with the current situation than any of the alternatives.
Kerry's alternatives.

John said...

To be a critical thinker, shouldn't one know what he thinks. I honestly do not believe Kerry knows what he thinks he thought 10 minutes ago.

If Kerry's positions are confusing to you and I, imagine what must be going on in his on head when he tries to think. Maybe that is why we call it critical thinking, his mind approaches critical mass when he thinks about what he thought he said.

Or maybe he's really a cat.

cheeky monkey said...

Wow Ala, you are the prettiest, SMARTEST, most amazing girl I've ever known. Sigh. It's so invigorating to be able to post here.

OK, now that we've gotten that apparently mandatory ass kissing session out of the way, here are some thoughts on being back and white anc critical thinking.

When Georgy boy was hosting leaders of the Taliban in his native Texas so he and his cronies could figure out how they could personally benefit from the building of a pipeline through Afghanistan, would it not be critical thinking to say that once a man has put his own greedy motivation before the lives and rights of an entire country, one that was beyond repressed and under the rule of barbarity, he ought not to be in the position of "going after" the Taliban some years later.

Or perhaps we can look at Donald and his pussyfooting around with Saddam in the 80s. So intent to get Iran (still failed mind you) that he and Reagan and Bush the former would play footsie and arm to the teeth the very man that became enemy numero uno. So should the Republican leadership have supported Iraq then?? And should they really be the ones to be going after terrorists, having supported so many, just a few years ago. Critical thinking would say no.
I love how the GOP has spun and ignored the fact that they are responsible for so much of the arsenals in Iraq but claim they strong leaders in the war on terrre (as Bush pronounces it). Perhaps a little gray matter would have come in handy back then, and of course now.

Is it so black and white after all, or will you somehow defend (the indefensible with Bush and the Taliban) the policies by saying that Iran was more of a threat (still is mind you). Is that really black and white?!! Or did the GOP decide that they would do business with one bad guy but not another. Seems to be gray thinking out the wazooo. If it were black and white, they would have done no business with "bad guys."

PS-- ALA, what's with your repeated self promotion in the academic world? You consistently like to tell people how smart you are, how well you've done in your classes, etc yet you bemoan the way liberals always talk about their intellectualism. So why is being smart on the left such a terrible thing, but being a smart right wing nut is something to repeatedly sing home about? Maybe it's that rare of a thing?!

commandantefidel said...

Cheeky,
You are so right about Bush and his conspiracy to rob us on the pipeline deal.

Bush also used his connections to the Saudi royal family to monopolize the oil supply and that's why the cost of gas is sky high. With all of the pipelines and oil monopolized he will go after the world food supply next and then it will be drugs.

Everybody knows that his wife was a drug dealer and that's how they met She'll be the one handling the drug stuff. Those two little bratty girls will help her in the drug dealing business, Bush will run the oil business and Karl Rove will keep his foot on our necks by rationing food. Republicans will get all the good food and everybody else will just get the left overs.

When the Bush's control the world supply of oil, food and drugs, you idiots on the right will see what people like me and Cheeky have been talking about.

Frater Bovious said...

If Ala has been subjected to anything like I've been subjected to by my own family members that style themselves as liberal democrats, then she has been derided and ridiculed, called stupid and sophomoric, had her arguments and beliefs called juvenile and ridiculous, and trashed in general. All by people whose most notable argument style involves name calling and allegations of profiteering, war mongering, etc., for personal gain and profit by the wretched money-grubbing Republicans. When these liberal intelligentsia are asked to support their wild allegations, the result is more invective, more aspersions cast on the native intelligence of the person, personal attacks on their character, a refusal to offer any verifiable support of their position, and a dismissal consisting of such impregnable arguments as "It's so obvious, if you're too stupid to see it, I can't help you."

All of which I have seen from various kinder and gentler and loving humanitarian nuanced liberals in all these various blogs and comments.

In the midst of these personal attacks it is hardly surprising that one may feel the need to express their credentials. And it is even less surprising to watch that human reaction attacked as well by these supposed superior beings.

And If I or anyone else wants to pat Ala on the back for writing something well thought out, which no one has managed to rebuff, except of course through the standard procedure of name calling and wild allegations, well I guess that's our perogative.

fb

ALa said...

Cheeky:
I don't think I ever put down the left for their 'intellectualism' (do they have that?)... I don't know if John Kerry's smart -he's never released his grades...hmmm...
I know that at a rally the other day Kerry said, 'Where can I get me a huntin' license?'
...and if Bush would've said that it would be all over the news for his deficient speaking skills.
As many on the right are always accused of lacking the ability to see shades of gray -I decided to provide my background in critical thinking --much as an author lists their schooling and accomplishments in the jacket of their book...it was relevant to the post...I apologize if it made you uncomfortable.

McWizard said...

I think Cheeky answered her own post. Sad.
Real tin foil cap stuff.

cheeky monkey said...

Ala, it doesn't make me uncomfortable in the least. I'm simply pointing out hypocrisy. You have decried the left's so called snobbery and intellectual superiority, and complain that lefties show off their "elite" school credentials. The implication is that such credentials don't mean they are smart, or effective leaders. Yet you have on several occasions let us all know how smart and educated you are. It comes across as defensive--like you're proving you're smart too, yet slamming those who wave their brain power about.

And I'll note here that despite my Ivy League education--both undergraduate and graduate (expecting summa cum laude for the latter) I have not until now waved that flag. I feel that my posts speak for me and I'm not defensive about what I've read, my teachers' remarks about my grades or how I was in class. I don't need the group hug you seem to about your qualifications and school grades. I don't think most liberals do either-- but the right seems awfully defensive about their brain power. I just don't get it.