Smallmindedness

Joe Illuzzi runs the local PoliticsWNY.com, to which I link on the right. He has endorsed George Bush for President. I don't agree. I actually think his reasons are pretty ... lame. Let's examine why:

The bottom line: I, nor do many, if not most, Americans give a good damn one way or the other whether Saddam had WMD or not. The fact is when he had them he used them against his own people. Saddam might not have been a terror threat post 9/11 but it was only a matter of time.

The Balfour report conclusively determined that Hussein had no WMDs, and that he was a diminishing, not growing threat. And everyone should give a good damn as to whether or not Saddam had WMDs, because the US shouldn't be invading countries and overthrowing their governments (regardless of how brutal they are) willy-nilly. We need a good reason. WMDs were a good reason. Too bad it was a false reason. If you don't care, you're willfully ignorant and you're a warmonger.

The truth is I would rather depose Saddam & fight terror in Iraq rather [sic] than within the homeland. This is the genius of the war in Iraq. Rather than fight the war on terror within our borders, losing thousands of men, women & children, we are fighting terrorists on their home field, so to speak, in Iraq & Afghanistan, etc., rather than in our cities. The facts are Bush has won two wars & is in fact winning the peace in both Afghanistan & Iraq. Bush has a handle on the war on terror. How often have the terrorists been successful at subsequent attempts at another 9/11 of some sort, not once.

The war in Afghanistan was good. It was proper and right. It seems to have been a success, all in all. The war in Iraq was bad. It was improper and wrong. It has been an unmitigated disaster. The point was that Saddam had WMDs, was thumbing his nose at the UN and needed to be overthrown. That went well enough, but everything since the day Saddam's statue fell has been marred by rank incompetence. Bush has won one war and gotten us involved in a quagmire in Iraq. We are not winning the peace in Iraq. Bush barely has a handle on debate preparation, much less on Iraq. But hey, at least it's just our soldiers who are dying in their hundreds, right Joe? Tell the people in Madrid that al Qaeda haven't been successful since. Tell the people in Bali. Tell the Philippines. Mr. Illuzzi should read the paper more. But maybe not the Buffalo News. He may still owe them money.

Kerry's "global consensus" goes without saying is a non starter on the world stage & is a metaphor for weakness. The French, Russians (No longer), & Germans just look at the world differently & cannot be relied upon in the war on terror.

I am so fed up with this notion that Europe can't be relied upon in the war on terror. Obviously, the above-quoted statement presumes that Iraq had something to do with the war on terror, which it didn't. That being said, the Germans have dealt with Baader-Meinhof, with Libyan disco bombings, with East German espionage, and were on the front lines of the Cold War. How dare a guy in Buffalo denigrate what Germany's been through? France was overrun by the Germans in WWII, and suffered immeasurably in WWI. Do you think France might be sick of wars on HER own soil? Russia, after experimenting for 13 years with some semblance of democracy, is now adopting the Latin American model of rampant, uncontrolled crony capitalism mixed with authoritarian/totalitarian government. Hooray for Russia. Global Test? That makes you mad? Trotting Colin Powell to the UN in February 2003 was part of the Global Test. You need to have a damn good reason to invade a sovereign country. I don't think we made one up, but I do think that the Bush administration chose not to listen to the voices within it that were saying that our reason wasn't going to hold water.

The reason why I write war on terror is the consensus of all of the small wars the US is engaged in presently is the sum total of the war on terror, as I see it.The Bush tax cuts benefited every bracket. Kerry's energy policy is the same liberal babble we heard during Carter & Clinton years. The US is in the beginnings of a full blown recovery from Clinton's recession. Anyone who understands maco [sic] economics knows unemployment is the lagger in any macro recovery.

Oh, great recovery. High energy prices, slow employment numbers, slumping consumer confidence, creeping inflation, stagnation, falling Dow. Happy days are here again? American Ignoramus: I support the idea that we need to wean ourselves off of foreign oil for our own security and the well-being of the economy...But keep your hands off my 10 MPG SUV.

The ethical questions not withstanding [sic] ... The News editorial board, esp., Lipsey & Goldberg approve of abortion on demand period, marry any one [sic] you want including your pet if that is your "choice." Oh & lets [sic] make it legal. Kerry, Lipsey & Goldberg, only pray in your home & churches. God has no place in our government buildings, schools, etc..

Do I detect just a smidge of anti-semitism here? Perish the thought. In Buffalo, it always comes down to Catholic orthodoxy, doesn't it? "Marry any one [sic] you want including your pet if that is your 'choice'?" That's the same argument that was made when antimiscegenation laws came down 40 years ago. If you really equate homosexuality with bestiality, then you're a bigot. Plain and simple. To say that homosexuals who want to marry or enter into civil unions are no better than people who fuck animals is horrific and should be censured anywhere and everywhere. And as for prayer in homes and churches and not in government settings, what's wrong with that? Establishment clause. Read it. Learn it. Love it. You pray in your church, home, car, etc., and I'll do the same in my church, home or car. Or not. But I don't need to listen to your prayers, and you shouldn't have to listen to mine. We enjoy a freedom of, and a freedom from religion.

Kerry is an advocate for Bush's "No Child Left Behind Act" ... As a matter of fact he would spend more money financing Bush's program. Problem is Kerry has so many promises costing untold billions he would surely have to raise taxes.Kerry for his part claims to be a good Catholic but voted against a ban on partial birth abortion. Kerry approves of gay marriage suggesting God somehow created homosexuals with divine intent, i.e., God created a man to lay with another man, or woman with another woman. How depraved have we become in this nation & lets make our depravity legal! ... Love the sinner!! ... Hate the sin!!!So much for the Buffalo News' new found [sic] conservative tendencies, this vacuous endorsement repudiated that notion. A constant unending repudiation of the public policy positions taken by this kneejerk, i.e., predictable, pro "re" active, not responsive, jerkwater (One word), publication which is the Buffalo News. Who cares who the Buffalo News endorses! (That's rhetorical)Bush for President!

Kerry voted against the partial-birth abortion law because it had no exception to save the life of the mother. Apparently, Illuzzi would kill the mother to save the baby. (Whatever happened to leaving medical decisions between the doctor and patient? Didn't Bush say that at the debate? Never mind.) And homosexuality is not a choice. If it was, why would a homosexual choose to be the recipient of ignorant bigotry like Illuzzi's? Illuzzi's afraid that Kerry might raise taxes. He said he would - but only on those making over $200,000. The ones that benefitted most from Bush's tax cuts. Kerry is more fiscally conservative than Bush - espousing the idea that Congress should "pay as it goes", and not just spend and pass the bill on to our kids. Bush Republicans: Borrow & Spend wildly. Kerry Democrats: Tax the richest 1%, and get spending under control. I know people kowtow to Illuzzi, but this sort of thing is what keeps Buffalo back.