Many people are faced with a very difficult decision in this year's presidential election. Three years after 9/11 they have regressed easily into the comfort zone of daily life in the USA. Any notion of a pre-emptive action to prevent additional terrorist attacks in our homeland has been eroded by the massive flooding of second-guessing. Additionally, there is a general acceptance by many that we probably deserved the attacks and that terror is something that we can more easily live with than confront.
Like their initial revulsion at the 9/11 attacks, their support for George W. Bush too has waned. Neither are they experiencing any excitement over the John Kerry candidacy.
While the current political system extremely limits the options of the American voter, it is important for these people to remember that our system also does not allow for a vote against a candidate. Your only option is to vote for one of them or to make your statement by not voting at all.
If you are one of these undecided people then you still have time to read, research and educate yourself on the issues and records of the candidates. You already know what issues are important to you and your family. It is now of great importance to know what you are voting for, rather than what you think you may be voting against. Your vote is valuable and you should not cast it lightly.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Our Two Party Political System
The current two-party political system we have in this country is ineffective and bears the responsibility for our populations increasing disfranchisement with the whole political electoral process.
By allowing the people such a limited choice in voting the party leaders and politicians retain greater control over the process and can select which type of campaign strategy they wish to employ: positive or negative. Candidates and parties can determine whether it is more beneficial (to their own interests, not those of the voting public) to promote themselves, their records, ideas and plans positively or to simply spend all their focus and monies on telling us why we should not vote for the other guy. With this limited field, citizens often feel that there is no real difference between the candidates, no true choice available, that their vote won't really matter, and simply decide to tune out and not participate at all. Others will be led (or coerced) into voting against a candidate or issue simply because they feel there is not a candidate that actually represents their individual interests or way of thinking.
The American people should have greater options. This two-party system frequently creates an undesirable outcome. The most popular method of voting against a candidate is to vote for his or her opponent. This results in your ballot not being cast for someone you support, but ultimately being cast for a "lesser of two evils" thereby still selecting a candidate that you do not really want.
The other option that exists is to write in a candidate. You can write in the name of any other person not listed on the ballot. Likewise, you can simply elect to write in "neither" or "not this guy." If enough of you take the initiative to vote your true conscience rather than simply settling, then your collective voices will be heard.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Confused or Simply Forgetful?
Many of the same people complaining that President Bush didn't do enough to prevent the terrorist attacks of September 11th also now chastise him for our nation's pre-emptive strike on Iraq. But are they pretending to be unaware of the treaty signed by Saddam Hussein in 1991? And the numerous resolutions on Iraq initiated by the United Nations, and the twelve years that Saddam Hussein limited, blocked and hampered the efforts of international weapons inspectors? Saddam thwarted the United Nation's efforts to enforce and ensure Iraq's mandated destruction of weapons of mass destruction (illegal chemical and biological weapons), and effectively ignoring the demands and desires of the united international community.
While there has been no proof that any great amount of weapons of mass destruction actually remained in Iraq at the time of our invasion, there is no shortage of sources that were certain we would find them. We all know that he had them, that he used them previously, that he failed to provide documentation of their destruction and that he repeatedly refused to allow weapons inspectors unfettered access to suspect facilities. Now we are finding multiple sources showing that Saddam Hussein had every intention of reconstituting his biological and chemical weapons programs as soon as the heat was off of him. Yes our intelligence was wrong, as was the intelligence of agencies and governments around the globe. Of this embarrassment there is no excuse. The United States should have had the most extensive network in the world providing the most comprehensive data possible.
How about Saddam's chemical attacks on Kurds and Americans? In 1993 Hussein attempted to assassinate one of our US Presidents. For years Saddam paid $10,000 to every Palestinian family that sent a son or daughter to be a suicide bomber and attack innocent civilians; CIVILIAN WOMEN AND CHILDREN going quietly about their lives, heading to the market, work or school. How about the repeated threats against US interests as well as the planned attacks uncovered by Russian intelligence?
What about the secret deals between Saddam and France, Russia and China in which illegal trading in defiance of UN sanctions were conducted for the financial benefit of the French and the detriment of the Iraqi people? And France's under-the-table deal with Hussein that they would veto any additional resolutions or actions against Iraq which were initiated by the United States. Even more disgusting was the involvement of several UN officials in the plot to subvert the oil for food program to illegally get around UN imposed trade restrictions for the benefit of cheap oil and to line their own greedy pockets.
By Saddam's own admissions, repeated threats and years of boldly defying the UN weapons inspectors he too thought he had them. Whether Hussein was actually duped by his scientists, very extremely mistaken in his assertions, or just very successful in his attempts to bluff the world; his failure to comply with treaties, sanctions and numerous resolutions ultimately led to his downfall.
How much longer that those twelve years should we have waited for the UN to act? Saddam Hussein single-handedly proved the irrelevance of the United Nations as an organization incapable or unwilling to enforce the multiple demands and resolutions. Every time Hussein flexed, the United Nations would take another step back effectively giving him even greater leeway. Saddam knew the United Nations was content with words and would perform no enforcing actions.
At one point they complained that the US government did nothing to prevent the 9/11 attacks? Why did they condone preventive action in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attack, but later completely changed your opinion a full 180 degrees? Would they have reacted differently if we had been attacked a second or third time? Did their attitude simply change with the passage of time or was it some particular event that caused them to forget what happened on that early Tuesday morning? What would it take to make them flip-flop again? At what point might they decide that pre-emptive action is the only way to deter terrorism and to ensure a safer country for our kids? We cannot allow uncontrolled emotions to lead us. That is why we so desperately need to continue to follow the strong, steady, principled leadership that President George W. Bush has provided.
We have to face the threat. This is not a war against a particular country or an organized force. These terrorists hide until they find their preferred moment to attack a selected easy target such as innocent civilians or children in a classroom. This hate is an evil weed in the garden of peace. If we ignore it now and fail to strike at the source, the roots will sink deeper and it will continue to grow stronger; spreading further and becoming an even more difficult foe that we will inevitably have to face in the future.
While there has been no proof that any great amount of weapons of mass destruction actually remained in Iraq at the time of our invasion, there is no shortage of sources that were certain we would find them. We all know that he had them, that he used them previously, that he failed to provide documentation of their destruction and that he repeatedly refused to allow weapons inspectors unfettered access to suspect facilities. Now we are finding multiple sources showing that Saddam Hussein had every intention of reconstituting his biological and chemical weapons programs as soon as the heat was off of him. Yes our intelligence was wrong, as was the intelligence of agencies and governments around the globe. Of this embarrassment there is no excuse. The United States should have had the most extensive network in the world providing the most comprehensive data possible.
How about Saddam's chemical attacks on Kurds and Americans? In 1993 Hussein attempted to assassinate one of our US Presidents. For years Saddam paid $10,000 to every Palestinian family that sent a son or daughter to be a suicide bomber and attack innocent civilians; CIVILIAN WOMEN AND CHILDREN going quietly about their lives, heading to the market, work or school. How about the repeated threats against US interests as well as the planned attacks uncovered by Russian intelligence?
What about the secret deals between Saddam and France, Russia and China in which illegal trading in defiance of UN sanctions were conducted for the financial benefit of the French and the detriment of the Iraqi people? And France's under-the-table deal with Hussein that they would veto any additional resolutions or actions against Iraq which were initiated by the United States. Even more disgusting was the involvement of several UN officials in the plot to subvert the oil for food program to illegally get around UN imposed trade restrictions for the benefit of cheap oil and to line their own greedy pockets.
By Saddam's own admissions, repeated threats and years of boldly defying the UN weapons inspectors he too thought he had them. Whether Hussein was actually duped by his scientists, very extremely mistaken in his assertions, or just very successful in his attempts to bluff the world; his failure to comply with treaties, sanctions and numerous resolutions ultimately led to his downfall.
How much longer that those twelve years should we have waited for the UN to act? Saddam Hussein single-handedly proved the irrelevance of the United Nations as an organization incapable or unwilling to enforce the multiple demands and resolutions. Every time Hussein flexed, the United Nations would take another step back effectively giving him even greater leeway. Saddam knew the United Nations was content with words and would perform no enforcing actions.
At one point they complained that the US government did nothing to prevent the 9/11 attacks? Why did they condone preventive action in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attack, but later completely changed your opinion a full 180 degrees? Would they have reacted differently if we had been attacked a second or third time? Did their attitude simply change with the passage of time or was it some particular event that caused them to forget what happened on that early Tuesday morning? What would it take to make them flip-flop again? At what point might they decide that pre-emptive action is the only way to deter terrorism and to ensure a safer country for our kids? We cannot allow uncontrolled emotions to lead us. That is why we so desperately need to continue to follow the strong, steady, principled leadership that President George W. Bush has provided.
We have to face the threat. This is not a war against a particular country or an organized force. These terrorists hide until they find their preferred moment to attack a selected easy target such as innocent civilians or children in a classroom. This hate is an evil weed in the garden of peace. If we ignore it now and fail to strike at the source, the roots will sink deeper and it will continue to grow stronger; spreading further and becoming an even more difficult foe that we will inevitably have to face in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)