Friday, July 23, 2004

Strong for Kerry-The new American revolution Many of us have long ago decided we could not vote for George Bush, but have felt a certain remoteness from John Kerry. Many people claim they don't know what he stands for, even though he has published his views on all the issues in which voters have shown an interest. The sense of a lack of momentum is because the real campaign has not yet started. Thursday night will be the real kickoff. For those who have been waiting to have their hearts ignited, turn on your television thursday night. I am not waiting. This is the most important election of my adult life of 63 years. We are in a global war that we did not choose. We are under attack by gathering forces who wish to recreate a culture of the 7th century. And we have a president who has bungled our defense. Perhaps, it is just wishful thinking, but I notice that one day after Sandy Berger, the former national security adviser under Bill Clinton, got into trouble, he was out of the Kerry campaign. It is only a glimmer of the administrative toughness a president would have to have to lead the country in this time of peril. What failure is great enough to get fired in the Bush administration? We haven't seen it yet. I am haunted by the repeated showing on television of a wounded Marine still at his post firing his weapon in an early battle in Iraq. I don't know his name, but if he can do that, then I can do all I can to make sure his service has meaning. I can help get rid of the bungler in the whitehouse and replace him with a man who will do the job, John Kerry. I will continue to write. I will get out there with the grass roots troops and go door to door to get out the vote. Like that Marine, I will not leave my post. I feel the rumblings of a new American revolution. Let's roll! Melvyn Polatchek 10:07:01 AM    comment []

Against Bush Because I have become conservative on many issues, even though a lifelong Democrat, like many, I am very dissappointed in George Bush. I was hoping compassionate conservativism had some practical meaning beyond the rhetorical. It does not. On several issues Bush has failed miserably. This article will focus on the failures of George Bush and the reasons to vote against him. Future articles will discuss the reasons to vcte for John Kerry. Afghanistan - After ousting the Taliban, we failed to capture the leadership of either the Taliban or Al Qaeda. We have stabilzed only Kabul, the Capital. Most of the rest of the country is under the direct control of the warlords, the same condition that led to the original rise of the Taliban. Although we still have special forces in the region searching for Bin Laden, Taliban and Al qaeda fighters still operate on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Iraq - The precipitous invasion of Iraq is one of the reasons for the unstable situation in Afghanistan. Having read Bob Woodward's book - "Plan of Attack", I know that it was Donald Rumsfeld who insisted on going into Iraq with so few troops. Worse than not having enough troops, we had no planning for the occupation. Having disbanded the old Iraqi Army and police forces we thought that we could just have military patrols walk the streets and did not even try to police the country. Historically, occupations do not merely chase out the old army, but a pacification and disarmament of the population takes place. We did not have enough troops even to try. Even with the relatively small number of troops used in the invasion, our Army is stretched so thin that we would have trouble responding to other obligations, such as another uprising in the Balkans, a move by North Korea, or mischief by China against Taiwan, to say nothing of opposing any Russian expansionism. Because we have lost so much credibility, we can do nothing to counter the real infiltration of terrorists into Iraq from Iran and the probable infiltration from Syria, What could we do if one of the Iranian backed terrorist groups attacked us ? Homeland Security - Although the president insists he is fulfilling his role of Commander-in-chief in order to assure the national security, though we have significantly better defenses we are far less safe than we were before Iraq because of the overstretching of our military. Because of the tax cuts we have a deficit that makes it impossible to fully fund first responders and various homeland security efforts, such as port security, border security, train and trucking security. The deficit. - The tax cuts and the increased spending on the Iraq war have created a huge deficit which makes it impossible to fund the necessary expansion of the military or to fully fund homeland security. Deficits are also harm economic recovery, since money becomes scarcer and interest rates rise. Health care - George Bush can take credit for a modest drug benefit plan for seniors. It would have been a much better plan under the democrats. Bush will do nothing to expand medical coverage to those who cannot now get it. Education - With much fanfare, Bush signed the "No Child Left Behind" act. But due to his deficits, it is far from fully funded and the net results are greater mandated unfunded expenses for local schools who now have to pay for testing and increased professional training for teachers. This is going to eventually mean greater local taxes. Faith - based initiatives. Maybe a good idea. Where is the money? Finally, one of my pet peeves, George Bush has culturally given encouragement to those who would roll back our traditions and obligations under the constitution to keep separate church and state. I will address the same list of issues from the Kerry point of view in my next article. Melvyn Polatchek 7:58:11 AM    comment []

Is Israel a rogue nation? As an American Jew and a supporter of Israel it grieves me to write this piece, but it is no longer possible to accept every action of Israel uncritically. The International court of Justice in the Hague has condemned the Israeli security fence. Now the U.N. General Assembly has passed a similar resolution. Israel has declared that it will ignore these actions and continue with its plans. I wonder if Israel has not gone too far. The right of self defense is not a blank check. The fence goes through territory that does not belong to Israel. When the U.N. declared partition in 1948, the world (except for the Arab nations) recognized a small piece of land as the State of Israel. In the ensuing war of independence, brought on by the attack of the surrounding Arab nations, some additional territory was gained. Again , most of the world’s nations accepted the new de facto lines. In the 67 war the Israelis occupied much territory in the West bank and other areas. It was always expected that this land would be returned for stable peace agreements. Israel turned out to have expansionist tendencies and started settling in much of this territory. The Palestinians reacted with violence which undercut their case. The settlements, supposedly temporary, encroached on territory where Palestinians lived. Now much of the fence is cutting through Palestinian areas in an attempt to protect these settlements. The fence is absolutely necessary to protect Israel, but its placement is an act of aggression which can only be seen as an attempt to make permanent territorial gains made in war. Keeping the settlements in the West Bank and putting the security fence deep into the west Bank are actions which are not needed to secure Israel. Israel can exist safely behind slightly modified borders of the pre-67 war. <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->These actions are simply expansionist. By defying U.N. resolutions and continuing to occupy territory that has never been recognized as its own by any nation has Israel not made itself an aggressor rogue nation? Melvyn Polatchek 12:45:06 AM    comment []