Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
Former Gov. James Gilmore, R-Va.
Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, R-N.Y.C.
Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R- Ark.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas
Former Gov. Mitt Romney, R- Mass
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Col.
Former Gov. Tommy Thompson, R-Wis.
It is time to finish this up.
Duncan Hunter: Duncan Hunter came into this debate to talk about two--and only two--issues. The first issue was support the troops. Hunter wanted to stand up the Iraqi military, and give them even more support to quell the ethnic civil war. Hunter wanted to rebuild the national defense, increasing the defense budget in order to put more arms and equipment into the soldiers currently serving in Iraq, and invoked Reagan's name on the issue of a strong defense. Hunter even stated that "Bill Clinton cut the U.S. Army by almost 50 percent. In this war against terror, he’s the wrong guy to have in there." But according to MSNBC's David Shuster, President Clinton cut the U.S. Army by 35 percent and cut the active duty army divisions from 18 to 10. The cuts took place at the end of the Cold War, and had GOP support. Furthermore, Shuster reported that Clinton modernized the U.S. military, allowing the U.S. Army's invasion of Iraq to be a quick success. Here is Shuster's fact-checking on Hunter's outrageous statement on YouTube:
So in effect, Duncan Hunter made a huge lie regarding Clinton's cutting of the U.S. Army by 50 percent. But you have to remember that Duncan Hunter doesn't care about facts--it is all about the PR-spin here. Bill Clinton cut our U.S. military. Do you really want to have Hillary come into office and cut the military while we're engaged in this Great War on Terror? Vote for me, and I'll restore our national defense back to the glory days of Ronald Reagan.
Of course, Duncan Hunter never bothered to explain how his administration would pay for this rebuilding of the national defense. Is the Tooth Fairy going to pay for Hunter's increased defense budget? Santa Clause?
The second issue that Hunter wanted to talk about was building a huge border fence around the U.S. in order to keep the illegal aliens out. What struck me about Hunter's border fence was that it was a simplified solution to a complex illegal immigration problem. I can understand the need for improving the border fence, and securing the current border here. But just as Hunter makes his simplified statement on rebuilding the national defense without understanding the complex details of how to pay for this increased defense spending, Hunter never bothers to explain himself on the complex immigration issues of American companies exploiting illegal immigrants by employing them in low-paying, menial labor jobs, or how to resolve the problem of developing an amnesty program for the long-term illegal immigrants, who have been living in this country for years. It is a simplified solution to a series of complex problems. And again, Duncan Hunter couldn't care less about the facts on the issues here--it is all PR-spin! Them illegal aliens are sneaking into your country, and taking good paying American jobs away from you. Vote for me, and I'll build a big fence around this country to keep them illegal aliens out! Of course, the best thing about Duncan Hunter's PR-spin on these two issues is that he could link them together. And he did. Moderator Jim Vandehei asked Hunter "to name one thing that the federal government does really well and one thing that it does poorly. And here is Hunter's response through YouTube:
Vote for me, and I'll restore our national defense back to the glory days of Ronald Reagan. Vote for me, and I'll build a big fence around this country to keep them illegal aliens out! Vote for me, and my two programs for restoring our national defense and building the big fence around our country will protect us from them illegal aliens, and evil terrorists. It was all PR-spin for Hunter.
Of course there were a couple of interesting topics which didn't fit into the Hunter PR-spin. Moderator Chris Matthews asked each candidate if they would change the U.S. Constitution to allow a naturalized citizen, such as the Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger, to run for president. Hunter said that he would change the Constitution to allow a naturalized citizen to run for president. Hunter and Rudy Giuliani were the only two candidates to answer in the affirmative on this question. I'll be honest here--I don't know how to analyze this statement by Hunter. He wants to keep the illegal aliens out of the country by building a simplified border fence, that probably won't keep the aliens from getting into this country anyways, and yet Hunter is willing to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to run for president.
Then there was Hunter's PR-spin on the topic of global warming. Vandehei asked Hunter whether he watched Al Gore’s environmental documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth." Here is Hunter's response:
No, I didn’t watch it. But, you know, I think that global warming and the need to be energy independent gives us a great opportunity. I think we should bring together all of our colleges, our universities, the private sector, government laboratories and undertake what for this next generation will be a great opportunity and a great challenge to remove energy dependence on the Middle East and at the same time help the climate. I think we can do that.
We need to take taxes down to zero for the alternative energy sources.
We need to make sure that all the licensing from our laboratories goes to the private sector, goes to the American manufacturing sector for these energy systems. I think we can do it.
I will admit that Hunter was very smooth in spinning the issue of global warming into a call for bringing all the interested parties to the table--universities, business, government, laboratories--to determine how to make the U.S. more energy independent, to remove our dependence of Middle East oil, and to reduce taxes on alternative energy sources. And if we reduce our dependence on Middle East oil, and make the U.S. more energy independent, then we will reduce the dangers of global warming. It makes great PR-spin, giving Hunter a chance to call for a tax cut. But Hunter's PR-spin really doesn't resolve the problem of global warming. Again, Hunter creates a simplified solution to a complex problem--it all sounds great now, but once Hunter enters office, you can bet that he's going to ignore the issue--rebuilding the national defense, and constructing the the border fence will be his top priorities.
Finally, I do want to contrast Duncan Hunter's statement here on global warming with Governor Mike Huckabee's position regarding global warming. From YouTube:
And let us not forget about Huckabee's statement that America is a great nation because Americans celebrate life--especially in saving the trapped West Virginian coal miners. Huckabee completely blundered his response to the issue of global warming, by first dismissing the scientific reports on global warming, and then claiming that the Republicans would be good stewards of the environment by opening it up to Big Business exploitation. In contrast, Hunter was very smooth in crafting his response by admitting that the issue of global warming exists, but then ignoring the issue by calling for more scientific studies, and more tax cuts to energy companies. But in the end, it is all PR-spin, and both candidates would follow the same policy of possibly ignoring the issue of global warming, and reducing environmental standards to allow Big Business to pollute even more of this country.
Tom Tancredo: Looking at the transcript here, I'm struck by how little Tom Tancredo said within the debate. But there are a couple of issues that Tancredo talked about which are incredible. The first question that Matthews posed is this:
MR. MATTHEWS: Congressman Tancredo, along those lines, imagine you’re president of the United States and this is a likely or possible scenario, certainly plausible. You get a call from the prime minister of Israel, the prime minister of Israel, who’s now Ehud Olmert, saying Israel’s about to strike Iran’s nuclear sites and he wants U.S. help. What do you say?
REP. TANCREDO: I say that, look, when we -- if you look at this issue and stand back for just a second and say there are two kinds of Irans that we are going to have to deal with here, one headed by a gentleman who believes that he is going to be responsible for the coming of the 12th imam, and the guy with a bomb, that should put us in the position of saying that anything we can do to stop that is imperative.
And if Israel is put in that position, and if we need to be involved in order to protect both ourselves and the Israelis, then of course we respond in the appropriate fashion.
MR. MATTHEWS: If the prime minister asks you for help, you say you will say yes?
REP. TANCREDO: Well, there are conditions, of course, under which we would say yes. But I’m telling you that if they are -- if there is a threat to the existence of Israel -- which is, by the way, I think, a potential threat to the existence of the United States -- then you have to come to that -- the aid of Israel.
Hypothetical situation. Israel is about to attack Iran, and the Israeli Prime Minister Olmert wants President Tancredo's help. Tancredo doesn't even bat an eye in responding that he will give Israel all the help they could ever want. If I didn't know any better, President Tancredo would send the U.S. into war with Iran, if Israelis asked us. Compare Tancredo's response here, with the same question Matthews posed to Rudy Giuliani:
MR. MATTHEWS: Mayor Giuliani, on that point.
MR. GIULIANI: It really depends on what our intelligence says. I mean, the reality is, the use of military force against Iran would be very dangerous. It would be very provocative. The only thing worse would be Iran being a nuclear power. It’s the worst nightmare of the Cold War, isn’t it, the nuclear weapons in hands of an irrational person, an irrational force. Ahmadinejad is clearly irrational. He has to understand it’s not an option. He cannot have nuclear weapons. And he has to look at an American president, and he has to see Ronald Reagan. Remember the -- they looked in Ronald Reagan’s eyes, and two minutes they released the hostages.
At least Giuliani stated that such an Israeli attack against Iran would be very dangerous and provocative, and that any U.S. assistance in this Israeli attack on Iran would have to depend on what the U.S. intelligence establishment would have to say regarding this attack. I can understand the need for talking tough, and possibly using military force in situations where all other options have failed. But looking at Tancredo's response here, I get the impression that Tancredo is setting himself up to be a puppet regarding foreign and military policy, with Israel pulling the strings. Tancredo has just announced that if Israel wants to go to war with Iran, then President Tancredo has no problems with it. And as for the "conditions" to which Israel must meet before Tancredo would allow the U.S. to aid Israel in their attack of Iran, Tancredo never provided an explanation as to what those conditions are.
That is scary.
Tancredo was given an unusual question from moderator Jim Vandehei, regarding organ transplants:
MR. VANDEHEI: Congressman Tancredo, David Diamond from Memphis writes in, "Do you have a plan to solve the shortage of organs donated for transplant?"
REP. TANCREDO: Well, I don’t believe that the government of the United -- that the president of the United States should be putting forth in -- a plan to do such a thing.
The reality is that technology and the advancement of technology in a variety of areas is going at a pace where I believe we can look forward to cures. We can look forward a variety of things that will allow us to cure diseases that today we do not have cures for.
But the idea that I think is inherent in this question -- that somehow we should be growing these things, somehow we should be cloning people for the purpose of using these kinds of -- of their attributes -- is ridiculous.
MR. MATTHEWS: That’s time, Congressman.
REP. TANCREDO: I absolutely would not support it.
So according to Tancredo, the U.S. should not institute a plan to solve the problem regarding the shortage of organs needed for transplant. What is even more ironic is that Tancredo twists his answer to this question to the issue of cloning, and stem cell research--please note that Vandehei never included the terms cloning or stem cell research in this question to Tancredo. Tancredo simply assumed that a plan for solving the shortage of organ transplants has to include stem cell research. There could be other ways to increase the number of organ doners within this country--place a checkbox on the voter registration card, or on the tax return forms, or even in the drivers license, auto insurance, or motor vehicle registration. This was one of those small questions that completely threw Tancredo into a loop, and the only way he could answer it is by declaring his opposition to stem cell research.
When Matthews goes down the line to ask the candidates their positions on stem cell research, knowing that former First Lady Nancy Reagan is sitting in the front row, and has advocated the expansion of federal funding on embryonic stem cell research, Tancredo clearly states that embryonic stem cell research is "morally reprehensible." Watch it on YouTube:
Now think about it. Here is Tancredo at this debate, trying to wrap himself in the image of the Republicans' favorite president, Ronald Reagan. Reagan died from complications resulting from Alzheimer's disease. Reagan's wife, former First Lady Nancy Reagan, wants the federal government to expand funding into embryonic stem cell research so that a possible cure could be found for patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease--a cure to treat patients so that no one else has to suffer the same deteriorative fate that Reagan suffered with his Alzheimer's disease. And Tancredo stands there, and tells Nancy Reagan that the federal funding on embryonic stem cell is "morally reprehensible."
Unbelievable.
Tancredo gave a strong statement regarding his opposition to abortion. From YouTube:
So if Tancredo is elected president, you can bet that he will select hard-lined, conservative ideologues to the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Now Vandehei posed the abortion question again to Tancredo, but in a slightly different context:
MR. VANDEHEI: Congressman Tancredo, this reader requests a yes or no answer. Will you work to protect women’s rights, as in fair wages and reproductive choice?
REP. TANCREDO: I will work to product -- to protect women’s rights. The reproductive choice part of that, if I heard you correctly, is a reference to abortion. The right to kill another person is not a right that I would agree with and support.
There is a bit of hypocrisy here with Tancredo. Tancredo claimed that he will work to protect women's rights to fair wages, perhaps discrimination, perhaps sexism, but not for abortion. In a strange way, Tancredo is telling American women that he will protect their rights in how women can live their lives within American society. But when it comes to a choice between a woman's right to her own body, and the right of an unborn child, Tancredo is telling women that the rights of an unborn child are greater than that of the rights of a woman's own body. It is a backwards sense of hypocrisy here.
There are a couple of questions that threw Tancredo into a loop. The first question is one that Vandehei posed, asking Tancredo, beside himself, who else should be the Republican nominee for president:
MR. VANDEHEI: Congressman Tancredo, David Kim (sp) from here in California wants to know, beside yourself, who do you think should be the Republican nominee for president of the United States, and why?
REP. TANCREDO: Well, of course, if I thought there should be another one, I wouldn’t be here. I think that I serve the purpose. I think that we -- good men all here, don’t get me wrong. But I am telling you this; that there are issues that I believe have not been addressed tonight, not in full, and I believe that they do separate us, and I certainly believe the issue of immigration and immigration reform and what’s going to happen to this country unless we deal with this forthrightly.
No more platitudes. No more obfuscating with using words like, "Well, I am not for amnesty but I’m for letting them stay." That kind of stuff has got to be taken away from the political debate, as far as I’m concerned, so people can understand exactly who is where on this incredibly important issue.
And when they see that, I think, frankly, I’m --
MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, time.
It is obvious that Tancredo thinks that he should be the only one up there running for president. And I'll bet that all the candidates--Republican and Democrat--think that they should be the only ones up on the stage, running for president. But look at what Tancredo then says, "there are issues that I believe have not been addressed tonight, not in full, and I believe that they do separate us, and I certainly believe the issue of immigration and immigration reform...." Tancredo stated that immigration, and immigration reform had not been addressed in the GOP debate. And yet, when I look through the transcripts of Tancredo's remarks, this is the only time that Tancredo himself brings up the subject of immigration. In addition, Tancredo seemed to have some short-term memory loss here. Duncan Hunter clearly stated an immigration plan that rests on building a massive border fence around the country as a means to reduce the number of illegal immigrants into this country.
Finally, Tancredo has a small problem regarding ethics. Moderator John Harris posed an ethics question to Sam Brownback on the Republican "culture of corruption." Harris posed this question to Brownback: Senator Brownback, Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham in prison for bribes. Just last month, FBI raids of two Republican members of Congress. What’s with your party and all this corruption? Tancredo wanted to respond to that question, and Matthews allowed Tancredo's response:
MR. MATTHEWS: Congressman Tancredo, you want to respond to that question that John put about these serious problems of ethics violations?
REP. TANCREDO: Yeah, well, they are not unique to the Republican Party. These are failures by individuals, and it’s important to understand that. And they should, of course, be dealt with.
Let me also, please -- because I haven’t had enough opportunity -- I shouldn’t say enough, but certainly an opportunity to address some of these other issues, especially with regard to whether or not it has be a centrist who wins the presidency of the United States. Look, we’re standing in a place dedicated to a man who we would not call a centrist who was able to win this state. He was also able to win the presidency twice. Why? Because he believed in principles, he articulated them, and he put them into effect. He had heart. We know it, we saw it. The American people saw it, and they respected that.
I believe it’s not necessarily whether you’re a centrist or not. I believe it’s whether or not you believe in your heart in the things that you say, and I do.
They are not unique to the Republican Party. These are failures by individuals.... So the scandals involving Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, Bob Ney, Rick Renzi, John Doolittle, David Safavian, Tony Rudy, Scooter Libby, Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling--Excuse me, Mr. Tancredo, are you telling me that this is all just a simple case of "individual failures" by each of these individuals? It is not just the members of Congress here that I've listed--Safavian, Rudy, Sampson, Libby, and Goodling all worked for either Republican congressmen or were connected with the Bush administration. The only Democrat that Brownback could cite was the bribery scandal involving Representative Willian Jefferson. Excuse me, Mr. Tancredo, but there is a deep, rotting, corruption of your Republican Party here that can not be explained away with just a simple statement of "failures by individuals." And let's not forget Mr. Tancredo, that the U.S. attorney scandal is now linking directly back to the Bush White House, and Karl Rove. Is Karl Rove just another example of your "failures by individuals?"
Tommy Thompson: Tommy Thompson started out pretty strong in answering a question regarding the Iraq war, but then he ended up putting his foot in his mouth for the rest of the debate. On the question of the Iraq war, Thompson laid out a comprehensive strategy on resolving the war. Here is Thompson's strategy:
MR. MATTHEWS: Governor Thompson, if you’re commander in chief and you want to win this war in Iraq, what do you need to do to win it?
MR. THOMPSON: First, you have to support the troops. There’s an undying bond in America that any time an American soldier is in harm’s way, we have to protect him.
Beyond that, there are three things that I’ve laid out. Number one, I believe the al-Maliki government should be required to vote as to whether or not they want America in their country. If they vote yes, it gives us a legitimacy for being there. If they vote no, we should get out.
Secondly, there are 18 territories in Iraq, just like we have 50 states in America. I would require those territories to elect governments, just like we do in our states.
And if you do so, the Shi’ites will elect Shi’ites, Sunnis will elect Sunnis, Kurds will elect Kurds, and you won’t have this internecine civil war.
Third, I would split the oil reserves -- one-third to the federal government, one-third to the state government, and one-third to every man, woman and child. If every man, woman and child is getting part of the oil proceeds, they’re going to have a vested interest in their country. They’ll be purchasing goods, they will be investing in small businesses, and they’ll be building the country on democratic grounds in Iraq.
Now I don't know if Thompson's strategy will resolve the Iraq war, but I will give him credit for proposing such a comprehensive strategy here. In simple terms, Thompson wanted to create a "United States of Iraq" here, where all three ethnic groups would live together in harmony. If I had to make a guess, the Shi'ites and Sunnis would fight each other for control of land and oil reserves, while the Kurds would stay out of the mess and continue developing their own independent Kurdistan. But Thompson's strategy is more than what the three front-running candidates have said about Iraq. When you at John McCain's response to Matthew's question regarding Iraq, McCain regurgitated the Bush administration's troop surge plan that will win the war. Even worst, both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney had absolutely no plan for resolving the Iraq war.
Thompson did provide one interesting detail in his strategy for resolving the Iraq war. Thompson stated that he would divide the Iraqi oil reserves, where one-third would be given to the federal government, one-third would be given to the state government, and one-third to every man, woman and child. One positive aspect that I like about this strategy is that Thompson is providing a cash infusion of the Iraqi oil reserves directly to the Iraqi people. This gives money to the Iraqi people to spend, or invest. I don't know if Thompson's plan would work since the three ethnic groups are going to fight tooth and nail for control of those reserves, and who gets what share of the reserves. But I will also give Thompson credit for providing this alternative in the debate--and again, I didn't hear anything from the three front-runners.
Unfortunately, Thompson then started putting his foot in his mouth. On the abortion issue, Thompson clearly stated that abortion "should be left up to the states. That was what was originally implied in the Constitution and was changed when the Supreme Court made the decision." You can bet that a Thompson administration will appoint hard-lined conservative ideologues to overturn Roe v. Wade. But Thompson started to show an even harder-lined conservative side. Consider this little question that moderator John Harris posed to Thompson:
MR. HARRIS: Governor Thompson, same theme. If a private employer finds homosexuality immoral, should he be allowed to fire a gay worker?
MR. THOMPSON: I think that is left up to the individual business. I really sincerely believe that that is an issue that business people have to got to make their own determination as to whether or not they should be.
MR. VANDEHEI: Okay. So the answer’s yes.
MR. THOMPSON: Yes.
MR. VANDEHEI: Okay.
Here is the YouTube video of Thompson advocating discrimination by sexual orientation:
Now I found this little post-debate, damage-control spin from the Thompson campaign. On the May 4, 2007 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, Thompson was a satellite video guest. Thompson claimed that he did not hear the question properly, his hearing aid was not working, and Thompson claimed that he never supported discrimination in the workplace. Here's the YouTube video:
Mr. Thompson, would you like some salt and pepper with your foot? Some ketchup?
How about some seconds for Mr. Thompson? Vandehei asked this question to Thompson on racism:
MR. VANDEHEI: Governor Thompson, is racism still a problem in our society? And can a president do anything about it?
MR. THOMPSON: A president can do a lot of things. A president can -- can set a vision that’s going to abrogate as much as possible racism in our society. A president’s got to be able to get out and speak and be able to unite. And the great thing about Ronald Reagan was he was a uniter, and that’s exactly what I tried to do as governor of the state of Wisconsin. I tried to bring people together. And if you do that, you can reduce and abrogate racism to a very great degree, and the president of the United States has got to be the number-one person in doing that.
Isn't that just nice? A president can set a vision that's going to abrogate, as much as possible, racism in our society. A president's got to be able to get out and speak and be able to unite. And the great thing about Ronald Reagan was that he was a uniter. Why don't we take a look at how Reagan was a uniter, regarding the subject of racism, and civil rights. According to On the Issues:
Inadvertently supported Bob Jones Univ.’s miscegeny policy: [President Reagan] was so cut off from the counsel of black Americans that he sometimes did not even realize when he was offending them. One example occurred when Reagan sided with Bob Jones University in a lawsuit to obtain federal tax exemptions that had been denied by the IRS. The IRS denied tax exemptions to segregated private schools. Many of them were schools such as Bob Jones University, which enrolled a handful of minority students but prohibited interracial dating and marriage. It was the basis of this discrimination that the IRS denied the tax exemption.
Reagan would later say that the case had never been presented to him as a civil rights issue. More astonishingly, he did not even know that many Christian schools practiced segregation.
Opposed Voting Rights Act of 1965: Reagan never supported the use of federal power to provide blacks with civil rights. He opposed the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. Reagan said in 1980 that the Voting Rights Act had been “humiliating to the South.” While he made political points with white southerners on this issue, he was sensitive to any suggestion that his stands on civil rights issues were politically or racially motivated, and he typically reacted to such criticisms as attacks on his personal integrity.
Then there is this June 7, 2004 MSNBC commentary by Joe Davidson:
After taking office in 1981, Reagan began a sustained attack on the government’s civil rights apparatus, opened an assault on affirmative action and social welfare programs, embraced the white racist leaders of then-apartheid South Africa and waged war on a tiny, black Caribbean nation.
So thorough was Reagan’s attack on programs of importance to African Americans, that the Citizens Commission on Civil Rights, an organization formed in the wake of Reagan’s attempt to neuter the official U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, said he caused "an across-the-board breakdown in the machinery constructed by six previous administrations to protect civil rights."
[....]
"Ronald Reagan, it is fair to say, was really an anathema to the entire civil rights community and the civil rights agenda,” Ronald W. Walters, a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, told BET.com just a few hours after Reagan died, at age 93, on Saturday.
[....]
Consider this record. Reagan:
* Appointed conservative judges, like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who continue to issue rulings to the detriment of African Americans. Walters notes that just 2 percent of Reagan’s judicial appointments were black.
* Began his 1980 presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., near the site where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964.
* Supported racism with remarks like those that characterized poor, black women as “welfare queens.”
* Fired U.S. Commission on Civil Rights members who were critical of his civil rights policies, including his strong opposition to affirmative action programs. One of the commissioners, Mary Frances Berry, who now chairs the Commission, recalls that the judge who overturned the dismissal did so because “you can’t fire a watchdog for biting.”
* Sought to limit and gut the Voting Rights Act.
* Slashed important programs like the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) that provided needed assistance to black people.
* Appointed people like Clarence Thomas, who later became a horrible Supreme Court Justice, to the Equal Opportunity Commission; William Bradford Reynolds, as assistant attorney general for civil rights; and others who implemented policies that hurt black people.
* Doubted the integrity of civil rights leaders, saying, “Sometimes I wonder if they really mean what they say, because some of those leaders are doing very well leading organizations based on keeping alive the feeling that they're victims of prejudice."
* Tried to get a tax exemption for Bob Jones University, which was then a
segregated college in South Carolina.
* Defended former Sen. Jesse Helms’ “sincerity” when that arch villain of black interest questioned Martin Luther King’s loyalty.
This is Ronald Reagan's legacy. This is the Reagan administration's record regarding civil rights. But Thompson doesn't care about the facts here--his only interest is in presenting this vision of Ronald Reagan being a uniter, who will bring people together and abrogate racism. It is all about PR-spin here. It is the PR-spin, created by Republicans like Thompson, which attempt to keep Americans both ignorant of the Republican policies that have been disastrous to this country, and to brainwash Americans that they should continue voting for the Republican candidates. Thompson will continue to deceive Americans with this stale, rotting, Republican agenda, wrapped up in a vision of Ronald Reagan's legacy.
We still have a third helping of Thompson's foot to serve here. And this one is just outrageous. Let's go to this simple question asked by Vandehei:
MR. VANDEHEI: Governor Thompson, Joanie from California wants to know how many American soldiers have lost their lives in the Iraq war and how many have been injured to date.
MR. THOMPSON: There’s been over 3,000 who have been lost, and several thousand have been injured. And the truth of the matter is -- is that we have to do everything we possibly can to give our troops the necessary dollars, the resources, the weaponry and the armed forces in order to protect themselves. It’s a bond that every American has with our armed forces. Any time an American soldier’s in harm’s way, we have to do everything, as our country, to protect them.
Mr. Thompson, AntiWar.com lists the American casualties at 3,378 Americans killed since the Iraq war began, and 25,080 Americans wounded. CNN.Com lists the American casualties at 3,377 Americans killed since the Iraq war began, and least 25,090 Americans wounded. Global Security.org lists the American casualties at 3,316 Americans killed since the Iraq war began, and 24,645 Americans wounded. The Iraq Coalition Casualty Count lists the American casualties at 3,378 Americans killed since the Iraq war began, and 24,314 Americans wounded. Mr. Thompson, you were technically correct in saying that there were over 3,000 Americans killed--so you were off by about 316 to 378 Americans killed here. What's the big difference? I'm sure the names and the faces of these dead American soldiers weigh heavily on your mind. Would you like to see the names and faces of these men and women who have died in your war? Because it was the Bush administration and the Republican Party--your party--that wanted this war in the first place. Unfortunately, Mr. Thompson, you were not correct in your estimate of the number of Americans wounded. Only several thousand Americans have been wounded? Try like...25,000 Americans have been wounded in this war! And since we're talking about casualties here, let's take a look at the Iraqi casualties. The Iraq Body Count estimates that between 62,841 and 68,868 Iraqi civilians have been killed in this war. And not to be left out, the July 2006 Lancet study on Iraqi casualties estimated 654,965 excess deaths related to the war.
Then again, who gives a crap about the Iraqi casualties? Any time an American soldier’s in harm’s way, we have to do everything, as our country, to protect them.
That is it. I've analyzed all ten Republican presidential candidates. If there is one thing that really connects each of these GOP candidates with each other, it is a crass shallowness that they all exhibit. Each of the GOP candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, glorify war, claiming that we must never surrender in Iraq, but instead pour more blood and treasure into this disaster. And as they are pouring blood and treasure into Iraq, they look over to Iran, rattle the saber, and threaten to get involved into another war, ignoring the fact that our military is being systematically destroyed by the two wars that the U.S. is currently involved in. For their economic policy, each of the candidates have advocated more tax cuts--even as we're currently involved in two wars, and possibly starting a third. We have Republican candidates that care more for the rights of unborn children, than for finding solutions problems affecting children currently living in America--providing health care, good education, housing, nutrition, and programs to keep them away from drugs and crime. We have Republican candidates who have a phobia of gays getting married, illegal aliens, Muslim terrorists, women, and minorities--these are candidates that are afraid of anyone who does not fit within their 1950s, Leave-it-to-Beaver fantasy. So they attack and discriminate against those who are different, while at the same time, wrap themselves up in the flag, pin themselves on a cross of gold, and claim on behalf of their conservative god, Ronald Reagan, that they the true saviors for America.
No comments:
Post a Comment