[Rhodes22-list] Re: Rhodes22-list Digest, Vol 564, Issue 1

[Razgaitis Richard]

It's hard to be silent on this issue, especially with a well-reasoned 
opinion as the context.  I think I understand the feelings expressed, 
and share some of those frustrations (my son and daughter in law lived 
4 blocks from the Towers when they collapsed and I have a Marine 
Captian/son-in-law, and father of two my grandchildren, about to be 
deployed overseas).

The choice, however, is which group of leaders is more likely to 
protect our lives and very civilization in the years ahead?

I think back of the Clinton team who led our defense/national security 
which included:  President Clinton, who had no military experience, and 
as a governor from among the smallest states essentially no experience 
in international matters including defense, Vice President Gore who 
cared/cares deeply about environmental issues ("Earth in the Balance" 
was of course about environmental matters not the war against 
civilization), Secretary of Defense Les Aspin (who was later removed 
from that office by President Clinton and has since died was, putting 
it in the most charitable terms, not a leader in defense matters), 
Secretary of State Madeline Albright (who put a very high expectation 
on peaceful treaty negotiations with North Korea, Iran, and the Oil for 
Food Program with Iraq, all of which we now know were frauds because of 
the deceit of the other party, however well intentioned we were for our 
part), Mr. George Tenet as CIA Director (who was reappointed by current 
President Bush, and on whose watch our inability to anticipate mortal 
conspiracies of our enemies leading to 9/11 and its many preceding 
events and also the now famous mistake of the missing weapons of mass 
destruction), and Mr. Sandy Berger as National Security Advisor (whose 
positions on many of these matters are unknown b/c of the sensitive 
nature of that position as the eyes and ears of the President on 
security matters).

Looking at national security/defense team put in place by President 
Bush (W. Bush) we have VP Cheeney, Donald Rumsfeld at Defense, Colin 
Powell at State, Tenet carried over at the CIA until this past summer, 
and Dr. Condoleezza Rice as National Security Advisor.  Despite some 
fairly aggressive public demonization of Cheeney and Rumsfeld, and 
uncertainty about Dr. Rice's private counsel to the President, the 
current team, is in my view, outstanding, particularly in comparison to 
its counterparts from 1992-2000.

We of course do not know who would comprise a President Kerry team, 
other than Mr. John Edwards, whose military/defense experience was 
non-existent beyond what he has learned in the course of his 
campaigning first for himself and how for the Democratic ticket.  We do 
not know Mr. Kerry's calculus in choosing Mr. Edwards but it is 
inconceivable (at least I hope it is inconceivable) that such selection 
was driven by national security priorities.

The story of Mr. Kerry's  Viet Nam service has received massive press 
mostly by Mr. Kerry's initiative ("I am John Kerry reporting for duty," 
the Swift Boat veterans on the stage for his acceptance speech, 
referencing his service in almost every interview, etc.).  For his 
actions some 35 years ago he has the respect of most people (and 
certainly would have such of all people apart from some clouds 
regarding his propensity for self-promotion in becoming so decorated in 
just 4 months without a day in the hospital).  But what matters more 
now is what did Mr. Kerry think and do during his 20 year Senate career 
which was focused, apparently, on military matters, and in particular 
the post President Bush-I period (since 1992).  Where was that voice 
for buttressing our intelligence services?  For a new military for a 
new threat?  For homeland security?  For increased defense spending?  
Although Mr. Kerry should not be held responsible for President 
Clinton's focus and decisions, he was not the voice that, for example, 
Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) was during an earlier era.

It will take a long time to reach a clear conclusion on whether the 
Iraq war was the right decision as it will hinge significantly on what 
happens yet in the future.  Knowing two years ago what we know now, a 
luxury no one ever has, would have lead to different implementation 
decisions and possibly even going to war decisions by the incumbent 
team led by President Bush.  But the question before us all now is who 
is more likely to bring in a leadership team that will marshall and 
lead the forces it will require to prevent our defeat by a tiny but 
extreme and relentless enemy who would be pleased with our massive 
extermination and who are only half a step away from making them, 
finding them, and/or buying them?

It will be essential for whoever wins what looks like a nearly exactly 
50:50 divided electorate to be able to lead the nation is some very 
tough decisions and probably difficult circumstances.  Elisabeth 
Kubler-Ross made famous the 5 stages that people tend to go through 
when faced with their own death:  denial ("no it cannot be me"), anger 
("why me?"), bargaining ("yes, me, ...but..."), despair ("yes, me"), 
and acceptance ("it okay").  I would hope that all of us will have 
avoid a de-validation (denial) of whichever candidate is elected, no 
matter how slender the deciding margin, and the demonization (anger) of 
'other guy' that now seems to have be national characteristic,  threats 
of moving to Australia or France like the late Pierre Salinger after 
the first President Bush was elected (despair), and just move-on 
(there's a phrase) right to acceptance (and prayer).

(sorry for the long post)

raz
S/V Rocky Rhodes



On Oct 25, 2004, at 9:28 PM, Loumoore at aol.com wrote:

> Ok I can't resist a few political comments, especially for my friends 
> in
> swing states who did not experience the blow of 9/11 directly.
>