How to lose a war

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has been issuing diatribes against the Bush administration that would surpass even Tariq Aziz with severe menstrual cramps. This strategy has made him the runaway favorite of the Democratic Party. Even Mr. War Hero, John Kerry, is getting shellacked by Dean. At times Kerry seems almost ready to surrender, making him look even more French. (If only Kerry had a war record or an enormously rich spouse to fall back on!)

In the wake of Dean's success, the entire Democratic Dream Team is beginning to sound like Dr. Demento. On the basis of their recent pronouncements, the position of the Democratic Party seems to be that Saddam Hussein did not hit us on 9/11, but Halliburton did.

Explaining his vote for a war that he then immediately denounced, Kerry recently said his vote was just a head-fake, leading some to wonder how many of Kerry's other votes in the U.S. Senate this would explain. He voted for war only to bluff Saddam Hussein into letting in the U.N. weapons inspectors. "It was right to have a threat of force," Kerry said, "because it's only the threat of force that got Hans Blix and the inspectors back in the country." But he never imagined that Bush would interpret the broadly worded, open-ended war resolution as grounds to start an actual war! "The difference is," Kerry said, "I would have worked with the United Nations."

None of the Democrats has the guts to come out and demand that U.S. forces turn tail and run when the going gets tough. If only one of them had the courage to demand cowardice like a real Democrat! So instead, they stamp their feet and demand that Bush go to the United Nations. Apparently it is urgent that we replace the best fighting force in the world with an "international peacekeeping force," i.e., a task force both feared and respected worldwide for its ability to distribute powdered milk to poor children.

Inconsolable that their pleas to "work through" the U.N. did not stop Bush from invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, now all the Democrats are eager for the U.N. to get involved so it can wreck the rebuilding process. Since we didn't let the U.N. lose the war for us, the least we can do is let them screw up the peace.

The idea that we would involve those swine in the postwar occupation of Iraq is so preposterous that it's under serious consideration as next week's slogan for the Howard Dean campaign. I hesitate to raise it to the level of a serious argument by offering a rebuttal, but as luck would have it, we have two models for how to occupy a country after a war. Getting "the allies" involved is not the winning model. After World War II, the United States ran the Japanese occupation unilaterally. Without the meddling of other nations, the Japanese occupation went off without a hitch. Within five years, Gen. Douglas MacArthur had imposed a constitutional democracy on Japan with a bicameral legislature, a bill of rights and an independent judiciary. Now the only trouble Japan causes is its insistence on selling good products to Americans at cheap prices.

By contrast, the German occupation was run as liberals would like to run postwar Iraq -- a joint affair among "the Allies," the United States, Britain, France and the Soviet Union. It took 45 years to clean up the mess that created.

The Soviets bickered with the French, refusing to treat them as "allies" (on the admittedly sensible grounds that they didn't fight). While plundering their zone, the Soviets refused to relinquish any territory to France. Trying to be gallant, the U.S. and British carved a French zone out of their own sectors. The Soviets then blockaded Berlin, built the Berlin Wall, and Germany was split for the next 45 years.

The British made Germany's war-torn economy worse by trying to impose socialism in their zone (as well as in their country). Predictably, economic disaster ensued. Over the next five years, the U.S. was required to spend the equivalent of about $200 billion annually in today's dollars to bail out Western Europe under the Marshall Plan. I note that there was no need for a Marshall Plan in Japan.

And the disastrous German occupation is the best-case scenario for "international peacekeeping." The less rosy picture involves the defaced corpses of American servicemen being dragged through the streets by dancing, cheering savages, as happened under "international peacekeeping" forces in Somalia in 1993. Showing that America is not a country to be toyed with, our draft-dodging, pot-smoking commander in chief responded by withdrawing our troops.

So naturally the Democrats are rooting for an international force in Iraq. The Democratic logic on national defense is: As soon as anyone in the military gets his hair mussed, we must pull out and bring "international peace-keeping" forces in. Our boys are in harm's way! People are dying! Bush lied when he said major combat operations were over! Let's run. That'll show 'em.

It was not lost on Osama bin Laden that it only took 18 dead in Somalia for the Great Satan to pull out. It should not be lost on Americans that this is what the Democrats are again demanding we do in Iraq.

Quote:And the disastrous German occupation is the best-case scenario for "international peacekeeping."

Etc.

Remember how badly McGovern lost? I hope dean gets the nod. Talk about the silent majority coming out! After what the dems tried to pull in Fla...........it will be a freakin landslide. Did you catch what Koch had to say about the dems? He even went as far as to say he was voting for Bush.

The Dems are throwing all the mud they can... I think a lot of Americans will vote for Bush just because they're sick of the mud-slinging.

Though, no one is worse then Gray Davis in CA...even Susan Estrich, the liberal USC law professor, said Davis was "a dirty bas**rd" when it came to campaigning.

And on the debate at Morgan State...the Dems spent most of their time going non-stop after Bush....and not enough time on their own platforms. They all sounded the same. Same thing happened in the 02 elections that the GOP won in a shock to the liberal media. Dems just scream Bush isn't the answer, they don't give any answers, and the people vote with the GOP.

WPS

rickheel Wrote:Remember how badly McGovern lost? I hope dean gets the nod. Talk about the silent majority coming out! After what the dems tried to pull in Fla...........it will be a freakin landslide. Did you catch what Koch had to say about the dems? He even went as far as to say he was voting for Bush.

That analogy might work if Dean was actually a progressive like McGovern was.

Now if Dennis Kucinich got the nod, probably the only true progressive in the field of nine, then he probably would lose badly. Not the case with Dean (who I'd vote for in a second), who's popularity is soaring at a time when Bush is not the most popular politician in Washington.

Of course, the primaries are still months away -- alot of time for more things to happen, whether they favor Republicans or Democrats.

SSJT Wrote:when Bush is not the most popular politician in Washington.

Who's more popular? Show me the numbers. Which politician is more popular than Bush.

BTW, Kucinich bankrupted his town when mayor.

Bush has got major problems, and isn't helping himself with his controversial nature. But unless the Dems come up with a REALLY GOOD alternative, he's gonna win.

The Dems are in trouble...all their candidates, not to mention their party seems very divided, and considering how badly they lost in the last election you gotta wonder what is going on. They never really came together and came out with a unified messege as an alternative to the GOP in the last election, and it doesn't look like they have one now.

Your platform can't be that the other candidate is "bad"...that's way too weak.

Maybe they forgot how to win elections having spent 8 years with a President who won them for them.

If a Dem DOES win, PLEASE let it be Lieberman. The others are ******* on National Defense.

Lierberman won't win -- way down in the polls, the more lefty side of the democrats have either committed to dean or kerry.

Wesley Clark entering into the race next week could pose some interesting competition though, I think he'll surprise.

And I'll correct myself: Bush probably is the most popular conservative politician in washington now

Dean however, would be the most popular moderate/liberal.

SSJT Wrote:Lierberman won't win -- way down in the polls, the more lefty side of the democrats have either committed to dean or kerry.

Wesley Clark entering into the race next week could pose some interesting competition though, I think he'll surprise.

And I'll correct myself: Bush probably is the most popular conservative politician in washington now

Dean however, would be the most popular moderate/liberal.

...and his #'s aren't as high as Bush. Hence, Bush IS the most popular politician.


....and the "Lefty Side" will not win any more than the "Righty" side will. .....and Bush isn't a "Righty", Jerry Falwell is.


As far as Clark, if he DOES jump in, Hillary won't let that happen. It'll ruin her chances for '08. That's common sense.

god help us all if hillary gets a nomination EVER


And you actually think Bush is a moderate? That's rich

i wouldn't call bush a moderate, given his social views and insistence on tax cuts, not to mention support for big business...then again with the way he's spending money, it does make you wonder.

Quote:After what the dems tried to pull in Fla

What do you mean?

smartass2003 Wrote:i wouldn't call bush a moderate, given his social views and insistence on tax cuts, not to mention support for big business...then again with the way he's spending money, it does make you wonder.

It's like the opposite of what Ike called "dynamic conservatism", socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

Schadenfreude Wrote:





Etc.

This is a political discussion room not a geography classroom, you moron.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

Quote:After what the dems tried to pull in Fla

What do you mean?

Read it with an open mind.........

Just to be sure you are clear as to how the President is elected:

How the Electoral College Works
The current workings of the Electoral College are the result of both design and experience. As it now operates:

Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).
The political parties (or independent candidates) in each State submit to the State's chief election official a list of individuals pledged to their candidate for president and equal in number to the State's electoral vote. Usually, the major political parties select these individuals either in their State party conventions or through appointment by their State party leaders while third parties and independent candidates merely designate theirs.
Members of Congress and employees of the federal government are prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
After their caucuses and primaries, the major parties nominate their candidates for president and vice president in their national conventions
traditionally held in the summer preceding the election. (Third parties and independent candidates follow different procedures according to the individual State laws). The names of the duly nominated candidates are then officially submitted to each State's chief election official so that they might appear on the general election ballot.

On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years divisible by four, the people in each State cast their ballots for the party slate of Electors representing their choice for president and vice president (although as a matter of practice, general election ballots normally say "Electors for" each set of candidates rather than list the individual Electors on each slate).
Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district].
On the Monday following the second Wednesday of December (as established in federal law) each State's Electors meet in their respective State capitals and cast their electoral votes-one for president and one for vice president.
In order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons" of their home State, at least one of their votes must be for a person from outside their State (though this is seldom a problem since the parties have consistently nominated presidential and vice presidential candidates from different States).
The electoral votes are then sealed and transmitted from each State to the President of the Senate who, on the following January 6, opens and reads them before both houses of the Congress.
The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president.
In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the States being required to elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top two contenders for that office.
At noon on January 20, the duly elected president and vice president are sworn into office.
Occasionally questions arise about what would happen if the pesidential or vice presidential candidate died at some point in this process.For answers to these, as well as to a number of other "what if" questions, readers are advised to consult a small volume entitled After the People Vote: Steps in Choosing the President edited by Walter Berns and published in 1983 by the American Enterprise Institute. Similarly, further details on the history and current functioning of the Electoral College are available in the second edition of Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections, a real goldmine of information, maps, and statistics.

rickheel Wrote:

How I'd hate to be the guy who had to draw that thing.

rickheel Wrote:

I don't know why you are so impressed with that map.

Gore still got more popular votes, despite all that red.