Quote:
Originally posted by Tophat665
<b>rgr22j</b>
<i>Also, considering the popularity of the liberation of Iraq, Dean's anti-war views do solidly put him in the "liberal" and not "moderate" camp.</i>
I don't think so. Popularity of a position does not make ones position in the political spectrum. If that calculus were right, then Pat Buchanan would be to the left of Jerry Brown instead of to the right of Mussolini.
|
I'm sorry? I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. In a democracy, typically the most popular position is considered the "moderate" one, with extremists on either side. For example, 70% of Americans oppose abortion, except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. On each side, you have your extremists: on the left, abortion in all cases (on demand), and on the right, abortion in no cases (even to save the life of the mother).
As a whole, America may be well to the right of say, Europe, but we are talking about the context of the American population. If we have no statistics on the popularity of opinions on certain issues, how are we to decide what is moderate and what is not? It is not as simple as taking half of two extreme doctrines, because the breakdown of the popularity of those positions is required to differentiate between a "moderate" Vermonter and a "moderate" Texan, or a moderate American and a moderate Frenchman. Moderate clearly refers to distinctly different positions, which we can only derive by knowing the popularity of those positions in the context of the population.
Dean's position is so virulently anti-war, more so than his colleagues, and he has gained considerable political traction as a result. In this case, Dean is clearly a liberal.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tophat665
He got his stance on Iraq just right: It was a dumbass war, started by a dumbass, for dumbass reasons. However, now that we are there, it is actually easier and more cost effective (prvided you make Haliburton compete their f*cking contracts) to stay the course and try to do right by it. We've got buddies that'll help us out with this if we're willing to eat a little crow, and all the next President hast to do to get that help is say what amounts to "My predecessor was a jackass, and we have no buisness being there. Give us a hand getting out and you won't have another Taliban on your south porch."
|
His stance on Iraq is wrong; it was a just liberation, started by an effective, straight-spoken leader, for just reasons. You are also wrong about the effectiveness of the Halliburton contract. The Halliburton contract in Iraq (to its KBR subsidiary) was awarded under the auspices of the Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) program. This is how it works: every few years, the Army receives bids for emergency services work. Rather than hold a bidding process for emergency work (like reconstructing oilfields), which could take weeks, the Army allocates a block contract for all emergency services. If anything needs to be done quickly, the Army calls up the company, which is responsible for a wide range of emergency work. You can think of it an emergency Wal-Mart.
Rather than tie up soldiers doing work they are not trained for, the Pentagon has trained civilian specialists on call that can do the job more effectively, more quickly, and at a lower cost. This contract is a COMPETITIVE process, with contracts awarded for several years. Halliburton first won LOGCAP in 1992 (as Clinton was entering office), and lost it in 1997. During this time Halliburton performed emergency work in Bosnia. In 1997, based on Halliburton's record in Bosnia, the Clinton Defense Department chose to keep it on to complete work in Bosnia. In 1999 (under Clinton) and 2001 (under Bush), Halliburton competed and won the contract, and thus was the point of contact for emergency work for the Bush administration in Iraq. No scandal, no impropriety, just standard operating procedure.
Also, if our "buddies" had been willing to eat a little crow, the top UN official in Iraq would not have been killed in a terrorist attack. In fact, if our "buddies" had been willing to eat a little crow and join us in the just liberation of Iraq in the first place, we might have had more soldiers and civilians on the group reconstructing Iraq in the first place.
-- Alvin
EDIT: Grammar errors. Apologies, English is not the language we normally speak at home!