To the Illinois Democratic Party: rebuke Lindy Scott for his comments on Military Service
We've been having some give and take on Capital Fax over this comment reported in the Daily Herald by Lindy Scott running as a Democrat for Congress in the Illinois 6th District's primary.
“Tammy has sacrificed a lot for her country. So perhaps in a general election there would be some support there because of her patriotism,” said Scott, when asked if Duckworth’s stint in Iraq is a liability among liberal voters in a suburban Democratic primary. “In the primary, perhaps it is a liability.” [Baar's emphasis]I happen to think Scott spoke from the heart and was --sadly as someone who once voted Democratic regularly-- right about a growing chunk of the Party's primary voters.
They do view a Candidate's Military Service as a problem.
If Scott's wrong and slandering Democrats, then the Party should rebuke him for uttering an outlandish and disgraceful comment.
Maybe they already have.
Or maybe Scott's apoligized recalling Eugene Sawyer's wise recollection of Mayor Daley's rule: you never have to take back things you don't say.
But I 've yet to see it.
Correct me if wrong.
I'm confident Andy McKenna would have been out with a press release by now if a Republican candidate talked like this.
Cross Posted at Bill Baar's West Side
50 comments:
First, the Illinois Democratic Party isn't known for doing press releases, but secondly, I'm getting really confused about the argument you are making here Bill. Previously you said you knew what he meant because of your actions back in during the Vietnam Party, but now you are saying it's a growing part of the Democratic Party. Which is it? Is it a throwback or something new? You lamented the lack of Paul Douglas liberals without ever stating what you meant by it, but given your penchant for claiming one example represents the entire side of the political spectrum, wouldn't that mean there were no Paul Douglas liberals when Paul Douglas was a liberal?
I'm saying Scott was right.
Military Service is a liability for a candidate running in a Democratic Primary because a growing chunk of Democratic Primary Voters are anti-military.
It may be the anti-Military wing isn't growing exactly, it's just increasingly all that's left.
If Lindy is wrong, the Party ought to break the press release tradition and soundly dump on him.
Just as Rich Daley, who's son has gone to war, dumped on Dick Durbin.
Why rebuke?
He didn't say that he had a bias against Democratic candidates who had served in the military. He said that he thought military service might be a liability to Democratic Primary voters.
I'm a Democratic Primary voter. A liberal, anti-war Primary voter. While I don't have a bias against anyone regardless of their military status, anyone who pays attention to Democratic Primary voters (particularly in federal races) would be blind not to notice that a lot of Democrats are concerned about candidates with a military background.
It doesn't mean they're right, it just means that they have an opinion. It doesn't deserve a rebuke, but it sure deserves some analysis.
I think a lot of Democrats are scared of candidates with military backgrounds because,while so many rank-and-file Democrats opposed the war, a whole lot of Democrats in Congress voted to authorize the war. These Democratic voters fear that someone with a military background may end up a knee-jerk supporter of military action.
That scares the crap out of a lot of us.
bill: you're wrong. now that you've been corrected, case closed. (you're not exactly an objective observer, so it's no surprise that you're chasing this canard!)
Bored:
Where am I wrong?
Scott's anti-Military.
Old West(side) is scared of the Military.
The Dems have become an anti-Military Party.
If that's a slur, it should be condemed.
But I think they're both right.
It's a anti-Military party where service is a liability.
It's why I won't vote Democrat anymore.
I seem to remember John Kerry having served somewhere...and you're right, he was attacked mercilessly for it. By Rove.
Wes Clark seems to ring a bell, too. And he was smeared in the press.
General Tony McPeak spoke out for Kerry...also smeared by the right-wing press.
I've followed this at CapitolFax, and I must say, it is one of the most porous arguments I've heard yet. You're challenging people to disprove an opinion...a premise so false it defies argument.
Worse, to disprove the opinion of a marginal, unpolished candidate who made his opinion backed up by nothing.
a marignal unpolished candidate who may beat Cegelis....
rebuke him or agree with him...
but I see no middle ground.
Intereting perception.
Of course you realize that of the Iraqi war vets running for office in 2006, it is 17-1 Democrats.
Republicans are great at TALKING about our soldiers. They feel that if they talk about service, they do not have to actually serve.
An apoligist for the chicken-hawk party concluding that Democrats "do view a Candidate's military service as a problem." Now that's amusing.
Of course the right-wing wants to continue perpetuating the myth that being against the war is the same as being anti-military service, and jump at the chance to make an issue out of a stupid comment by a very stupid man.
But the question is, why give any credence to the ramblings of fool with a public rebuke? Andy McKenna is not running the Democratic Party in Illinois.
Skeeter,
Paul Hackett's withdrawel statment,
Today I am announcing that I am withdrawing from the race for United States Senate. I made this decision reluctantly, only after repeated requests by party leaders, as well as behind the scenes machinations, that were intended to hurt my campaign.
Scott just finds Duckworth a liability because she fought for America in an immoral war.
So I can't buy,
Of course you realize that of the Iraqi war vets running for office in 2006, it is 17-1 Democrats.... will last for long.
Agree with Scott or rebuke Illinois Democrats....
...there is no middle here.
...why give any credence to the ramblings of fool with a public rebuke?
He's a fool who's raised more then Cegelis... he might beat her... heck he might beat Duckworth.
"He's a fool who's raised more then Cegelis... he might beat her... heck he might beat Duckworth."
That's why Cegelis wasn't a viable candidate in the first place, she maxed out last time around. Anyone who thought she would raise money either didn't get it or was a supporter too blind to see the writing on the wall.
And Scott isn't going to beat Duckworth. The chicken-hawks are going to be forced to try to swiftboat another vet.
bill, you asked to be corrected and i happily obliged. you somehow mistake your assumptions for evidence, and then express surprise when others disagree! if you stopped jumping to unwarranted conclusions, you'd be less surprised.
i have no idea why you've concluded that scott is anti-military, except your penchant for jumping to conclusions. what he said was "perhaps it is a liability." now i suspect that english is not your strong suit (it's certainly not mine!), but it seems that you don't quite understand the word "perhaps."
look it up in the dictionary. it will save you some heartache.
scott is making a comment, based upon the fact that IT'S UNKNOWN. neither scott nor duckworth have polled on this issue, so they have nothing but anecdotal evidence. quite frankly, it's unknowable until election day. you assume something about scott's comment because of your own predispositions, and you've chosen to interpret it in a way that confirms those predispositions. your conclusions are not factually based, but i doubt that is of much concern.
your assertion that democrats have become anti-military is absurd. again, you've jumped to a conclusion (to save time and space, let's just say you did a baar). my wife, a *liberal* democrat, retired as a cwo from the navy -- and has no problems attending democratic functions of all levels. she proudly wore her "vets for kerry" button in 2004. i myself taught at the national defense university and i've never confronted anything close to anti-military suspicion from democrats. it's readily accepted.
so there must be another reason why you've done a baar here. i won't venture a guess.
how irrational you've become (bet you listen to rush!) is demonstrated by your comment: "It's a anti-Military party where service is a liability." that's not only absurd, it defies evidence clearly understood by all! duckworth is a great example of how democrats have actively been recruiting military vets to run! hmmmm, you see the evidence, but you ignore it because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions!
and it's not like duckworth or paul hackett, et al, are the only democratic vets. according to one source, 45% of the active military supported john kerry -- and i suspect this is why you're really distressed. many of those on active duty are concerned about the direction this administration has taken our military.
being anti-war -- and especially against the iraqi war -- is *not* anti-military. some might even call it christian (i'm betting that scott does). you're right in that there's no middle ground -- but there's NO GROUNDS for your conclusion!
now, i admit that scott has a better chance than i expected, but you are wrong (again) when you say that scott has raised more than cegelis...
Bored,
Scott thinks Duckworth fought an immoral war.
He said perhapes that's a liability.
I think his conclusion... his perhapes conclusion... is right on. You believe it's immoral, service is a liability.
I'm just connecting the dots. Although I think it's pretty plain to see.
I'd condem him. But if it's an anti-military party... if that's the shoe that fits. Well, we can thank Scott for making it clear for all to see.
there's no question that our invasion of iraq is outside the norms of the just war tradition. the pope condemned it, bush's own denomination condemned it -- in fact, it was universally condemned by all those religious authorities who have worked within the just war tradition. so it is hardly surprising that scott, a profressor at a renown christian college, would consider it immoral. he's hardly alone.
this fact is deeply disturbing to many of the officers i know and communicate with. and it seems to confuse many regular service men and women, as well. of course they want american religious institutions to support their service. but they are more circumspect than you (they don't do a baar); they understand that george bush has failed to make the case for going into iraq, and has not built a broad consensus, internationally or internally, for his war doctrine. given the innate weakness from which we as a nation sit, it's hardly surprising that you don't understand the terms of the debate.
doing a baar is unquestionably easier!
Wow, talk about using bs logic to make a point you can't otherwise make. The decision to go to war and the people who serve at the pleasure of the Commander in Chief are not one in the same.
As much as the GOP would like, and as much as you've tried to make it the case with this post, one can very easily question the motives of the administration, question the war, even say it's immoral, and still support the people who fought and are still fighting.
That's one reason why there are many more Democratic candidates than Republicans with military service this election cycle. They served their country and did what was asked of them, even though many realized all along, or came to realize, that they were put there by people who never wore the uniform, who lied about why they were sending them there, and didn't have a coherent plan in place once they sent them there.
Being for this war doesn't make anyone defacto "pro military."
"They do view a Candidate's Military Service as a problem."
As an Illinois citizen, a Democrat and a former member of the U.S. Army Infantry, I believe that this may be the most absurd thing ever posted on this blog.
In the last presidential election, Illinois Democrats overwhelmingly voted for the man who served his country in Vietnam rather than the candidate who hid in, and from, the Air Guard.
Simply absurd.
Scott's statement was clear. He thinks Military Service a liability for a Democrat in a Democratic primary.
Agree with him or rebuke him.
As far as the Pope and Just War goes, Rumsfeld said it best with Tim Russert back in 2003.
Russert: There are many in the world asking for more time for negotiations, for diplomacy -- the Vatican -- the pope issued this statement: "Whoever decides that all peaceful means available under international law are exhausted assumes a grave responsibility before God, his own conscience and history."
Rumsfeld: It's true.
Russert: And you accept that?
Rumsfeld: Indeed. It is a fair statement. War is the last choice. President Bush has said that repeatedly, and he has made every effort humanly possible to avoid it.
Russert: Yesterday in New York City and across --
Rumsfeld: Indeed, he gave a final ultimatum to avoid war: leave in 48 hours -- after exhausting every other step. He is -- I am sure very [few] people could disagree with what the pope said.
Russert: Yesterday in New York City, some 200,000 Americans took to the street and protested -- there's video -- across the world. What would you say to those protestors?
Rumsfeld: Well, I -- this is a free country -- people can have their own views, and they always have. In every war, there have been protestors. The American Firsters filled Madison Square Garden repeatedly with thousands of people before World War II while Europe was in flames, while millions of Jews were being killed, and the chant was, "Don't get involved in a war in Europe." It's a natural human reaction for people to want to avoid war.
It is a grave responsiblity Lindy Scott... before God and History. I'm guessing both will judge your cruel pacifism harshly in time. Just as Christian Pacifist A. J. Muste long forgotten... an embarressment best not recalled because he was one of those chanting Don't get involved in a war in Europe while millions died.
To my fellow Democrats: thank you for not agreeing to the Republican talking points.
Theirs is the party that skimps on VA benifits. The top of their ticket didn't go to Vietnam and their no. 2 "had other priorities".
As far as that district goes: it went 52% for the person who DIDN'T see action in Vietnam during the 2004 general election, so perhaps IN THAT DISTRICT actual military serivce might be a problem. ;-)
"Scott's statement was clear. He thinks Military Service a liability for a Democrat in a Democratic primary."
you really don't know what the word PERHAPS means, do you?
it's equally obvious that you have no clue what are the requirements of the just war tradition, as well. that's more than evident from your mention of pacifism AND your reference to rumsfeld (like that will prove something!). but at least you did a baar! you're consistent.
(i won't explain why the u.s. military has traditionally stayed within the standards of the just war tradition, given your ignorance of the subject. but i will note it's ironic that you've used bush's ultimatum that iraq abandon its wmds -- when it actually had no wmds -- to support whatever predisposition you have. i can't say i understand what point you're trying to defend, given its absurdity and inaccuracy.)
so let's sum up: you don't know what "perhaps" means, you don't understand what "just war" means, and you don't want to recognize that you were wrong -- even though you asked to be corrected.
Perhapes I know Scott pretty well here...
...give the man the credit of his convictions.
He thinks the war immoral.
He thinks fighting in it a liability.
Democrats who agree with that will vote for him. I think he's get a lot of votes.
I don't think he's wishy washy about it.
That Scott could say perhapes while sitting in a room with a Vet who lost both her leg in combat is telling too...
...that takes some pretty gross insensitivity....
...cruel pacifist he is indeed.
Rebuke him.
LOL---Bill is right because he is right. Instead of arguing the number of angels on the pin of a needle, I asked Lindy
====Larry,
Thanks for your note and for putting up the interview. The quote about Duckworth was out of context. I gave a one sentence answer to a question about how Duckworth's military status would play out among the voters. The
reporter used the verb "argued" as if this were a major issue for me. It is not. I think her status would play slightly better among general voters than among Democratic primary voters. The bigger issue is who is the best
candidate and who has the best chance of beating Roskam. Given my appeal to Latino and other immigrant voters, the youth vote, the evangelical, catholic
and muslim vote, I have the best chance of winning enough of the swing voters in the district to win the general election in November. Just taking a look at my signs that have popped up all over Wheaton, Roskam knows that I
would be the toughest foe here in Wheaton and even more so all around thedistrict.
Thanks,
Lindy
This is consistent with Lindy's general points about his candidacy when I interviewed him. It was a bad and stupid choice of words, but not one that was about whether her service was good or not, but one about how it played out with voters.
Voters in primaries tend to be more issue based--hence why Duckworth doesn't say a sentence that doesn't end in something about healthcare. She gets that primary voters are different than general election voters and so does Lindy and his point makes sense--the concentration on her bio has caused her some problems in the primary, but will be an assett in the general--not because of her military service, but because some perceive that as the only thing she has going for her.
Given it wasn't something he brought up and in context it makes sense, it's hard to imagine how you are so convinced of yourself. If you are still confused, you might note that Lindy wrote a book that is highly critical of the Iraq War from a Just War perspective, but did view the Afghanistan invasion as just. He's not anti-military, he anti-unjust war.
You might disagree over whether Iraq was justified, but, again, being against the Iraq War is not being anti-military--it was judging the situation more accurately than our leaders (and I) did at the time. Scott is anti-George Bush, not anti-military. Conflating the two is a disturbing trend for many of his supporters.
Bill, what little respect I had for you is gone. You are doing your very best to stir up trouble for Scott, while tossing in a few digs at Cegelis on the way. As Larry points out, you've contradicted your own argument, and you just won't let it go.
BTW, Scott has not raised more than Cegelis. Check the FEC reports and note the loans made to the candidate by the candidate. Unless you consider $63K in loans a donation to himself or $71K more than $200K+.
My question to you: Who are you supporting in this race? You are about as unbiased as I am here so drop the authority on the Democrats role and just admit you are spinning for Duckworth.
Ya, ya, I know, you saw here once and were impressed...
And Bill--if you want a press release, try and track down Steve Brown. I'm sure he'll return your call real quick if you tell him you are a blogger who is obsessed about a guy he may or may not even be aware of.
He will, however, have a great story for next years Governor's Day.
Bill,
I think that the State Democratic Party, if they knew about what Lindy said, would be right to demand an apology. But it's no more than 5% of the Democratic Primary that would probably find Duckworth's military service to be a liability. If you go to Daily Kos, they're gushing over veteran candidates for Congress every day. The 5% is the far extreme of the Democratic Party. There's a similar 5% or thereabouts in the Republican party who probably wouldn't vote for a candidate who is in an interracial marriage. You can't paint either party by its extremists, and Lindy was wrong to do that and he should apologize
Arch: Are you Lindy's spokesperson or will he write something to the Harold? Let's look for a statement on his blog.
Anon 9:34: Of course I'm biased. I display my bias every day on my blog, or here; and of course I stir up trouble... the sign over the picture of Brendan Behan at the old O'Rourkes at North and Sedgewick was to make the blind see, I throw sand in their eyes.
I just threw a handfull.
If I lived in district, and pulled a dem ballot, I'd vote for Duckworth.
If it's Duckworth vs Roskam it would be tough because I'd want to know what Duckworth would do if the crazies took over the Dem Party with a majority... and I've blogged before on my problems with with Roskam and some of the money he's taken.
I think her status would play....
geez... He body is broken and limbless in service to the United States.
That's her status.
That perhapes her status could ever be seen as anything other than honorable a disgrace.
Rebuke him.
====Arch: Are you Lindy's spokesperson or will he write something to the Harold? Let's look for a statement on his blog.
(boggle) He made a statement when I asked him the question(/boggle). Given I recently interviewed him, it's not exactly unheard of that I'd follow up. You know, instead of discussing angels and heads of pins. I'm sorry you don't find that to be done in the manner you deem necessary or perhaps you are confused about the punctuation?
What part of it don't you understand? Strangely, because Bill Baar has a wild hair growing doesn't mean candidates have to jump up and down.
Scott has a blog.
His latest post is Arabphobia about the UAE contract... a West Suburban guy's equivelant to a hysterical cartoon riot.
Forget me dancing on pins, Scott needs to dance on out and quit talking garbage about Arabs and Christs second coming of the Federal Budget and say he's sorry for a stupid comment....
...unless he's convinced it's true... in which case we know the point person for Illinois's anti-military wing of the party.
First of all, Scott is a fool who is absolutely clueless as to the political realities of the real world, as opposed to the members of his small segment within the Democratic Party.
Secondly, anyone who expects a comment from the Illinois Democratic Party on this is even more naive than Scott! Just take a look at some of the people who make up the Democratic State Central Committee (or as the GOP would call it, their dream list of people to use to scare campaign donations out of fellow Republicans). Unfortunately, most of these characters will still be around after the primary, because many of them are running unopposed:
Bobby Rush - former official in the Illinois Black Panther Party.
Iris Martinez & Antonio Munoz - State Senators who owed their election to the General Assembly to the notorious Hispanic Democratic Organization (Munoz is not seeking re-election, but another HDO creation, 12th Ward Alderman George Cardenas, is running in his place).
Darlena Williams-Burnett - Her husband, 27th Ward Alderman Walter Burnett was once convicted for bank robbery (Ald. Burnett, who did turn his life around, later received a full pardon, but I suspect those GOP scaremongers won't include that fact in their fundraising letters).
Danny Davis - The Congressman has been shown hailing praises for the Rev. Moon of South Korea on a 60 Minutes report.
William Marovitz - The husband of Playboy Magazine President and Publisher Christie Hefner.
Carol Ronen - Among Senator Ronen's many character flaws is the fact that she may well be the most fawning supporter of Gov. Blagojevich in the entire General Assembly.
Add to this list the prospect of Downstate Congressman Jerry Costello (12th), who was once listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in federal court, joining the ranks of the Democratic State Central Committee, and you have these Republican fundraisers salivating.
...anyone who expects a comment from the Illinois Democratic Party on this is even more naive than Scott!
Randall,
I'm an angry naif falling off the turnip truck.
Bill
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=18597
Were I the author of this cartoon (which I am not) I would be dedicating the lower center panel to Bill right about now.
Maybe Scott would feel better about Maj Duckworth if she was a Veteran of the Cuban Army.
Here's Scott's defense of the Wheaton in Cuba program, and this response from the Editor of Right... and a student in his class...
We appreciate your email. I would like to state firstly that I find you to be a very good professor and teacher and I greatly enjoyed the
time that we spent together in Cuba.
The time in Cuba produced a negative impression in my mind of not you as a person, but those who
support the Cuban project, which I find to be immensely suffocating and fundamentally contradictory of the basic premises of human
dignity.
read the rest....
Maybe Scott would feel better about Maj Duckworth if she was a Veteran of the Cuban Army.
Maybe you're an idiot who can't discern the difference between someone expressing an opinion and someone speculating about opinions that others might hold.
Here's a cached copy of Lindy's Wheaton into Cuba program. (The link's broke on the current Wheaton College site).
The city of Havana is considered the capital of all things √ politics, economics and culture √ and is an exciting hub for students interested in Latin American culture.
Here are some pictures of life in Havanna take by dissidents, and here's something from Nat Hentoff on,
Dr. Biscet, a disciple of Martin Luther King Jr., [who] has been especially tormented by Fidel Castro—who knows who this prisoner is and where he is—because Biscet refuses to wear the usual prison uniform. He has also protested the vicious treatment of other prisoners.
Castro, while not sensitive to the sufferings of his prisoners of conscience (as Amnesty International designated them), is, however, sensitive to criticism of his brutality from abroad, especially from his supporters in the European Union. Accordingly, 15 severely ill prisoners have been released on medical parole after international protests on their behalf.
As far as I can tell Scott's been indifferent to Dr. Biscet's fate.
===Maybe Scott would feel better about Maj Duckworth if she was a Veteran of the Cuban Army.
==Here's Scott's defense of the Wheaton in Cuba program, and this response from the Editor of Right... and a student in his class.
Scott's defense? Are you reading what you linked to? He's not defending the program, he's saying the student lied about what was observed. The student apparently claimed there was no religion and Lindy asks him how he can square that with seeing busy evangelical churches.
What's most bizarre and disturbing about your efforts to smear him without knowing anything of which you speak is that Lindy was a powerful voice for human rights including women's rights during his time in Mexico.
Taking a class to Cuba and pointing out they have a fairly good educational and health system--stellar in terms of Latin America in general, doesn't mean one supports Castro or the Communist regime. He never says he does support them so your wild handwaiving is something that deserves rebuke, not Lindy.
It's absolutely bizarre that a statement about Havana being a cultural center in Cuba somehow is supposed to mean that then the person stating a non-controversial statement about Cuba and Havana then thinks everything is good there. It's simply garbage to try and smear someone with that kind of crap.
Read his student's response to Citzen Scott's enthusiasm for Cuban Health Care and Social Security,
The fact that Communist governments have largely collapsed after having murdered over 100 million people
in the twentieth century should serve as a warning to all interested observers that Communism is wholly pernicious and very anti-Christian,
despite whatever salutary benefits it might provide.
Check the Black Book of Communism. You'll find description of how those 100 million plus died in the past century and chapter on Castro's Cuba, with pictures.
It's easy perhapes when you live in Wheaton to think of that as Culture.. the vast march of the masses towards paradise, free health care, and social security while..trampling the enemies of the state under their feet as they go.
Scott and George Ryan should both emigrate to Cuba.
It's another non-sequitur. Because one points out that a government does two things well, does not mean one is advocating that specific government nor the type of government in question. It is pointing out a fact. What you are doing is smearing someone for commenting on facts, not for their overall opinion of the Cuban Government.
No one is denying Cuba's government is repressive. You appear to be trying to claim people are saying it is not without providing any evidence of such a statement instead trying to morph comments about the Cuban health and education system into an overall statement of the government.
Now, you weren't just happy with one non-sequitur, you had to bring up George Ryan and his trip to Cuba. Of course, Ryan didn't claim Cuba was not repressive, he said the current embargo is ineffective and we might as well trade with them as we do with most other repressive regimes. After over 40 years, one might just come to the conclusion that the embargo hasn't had the desired impact, but that involving Cuba more in the world economy would actually push them towards more openness. You can disagree, but no one you have tried to bring up argues that Cuba is not repressive and that repression is a bad thing. They just have different arguments in regard to what is the most effective policy towards that repressive regime
George Ryan's trip to Cuba was a horrible waste of our taxpayer money. It accomplished nothing for Illiosians or Illinois business. Me and my friends are gonna throw a party the day George Ryan is convicted and loses his ill-gotten pension.
Scott's a dupe for Castro.
He made an ignorant comment about Duckworth --a certified American hero.
It's about as simple as that.
Send him packing to Havanna with Ryan.
===Scott's a dupe for Castro.
Do you have some evidence of this? Factually, he is correct--Cuba has higher literacy rates than most if not all of the rest of Latin America and it's health care system works better than most if not all developing countries. It doesn't mean that Castro isn't evil and it doesn't mean he isn't repressive, it simply points out the facts. Unless you support making up reality, what is wrong with Scott's statements even as characterized?
--He made an ignorant comment about Duckworth --a certified American hero.
And you have had it pointed out to you the larger context and the situation in which he answered it--none of which indicates your interpretation is accurate.
===It's about as simple as that
It's simpler than that, but you have continued to make up claims about him making it far more complicated than reality.
---Send him packing to Havanna with Ryan.
Non-responsive see my last point.
...he is correct--Cuba has higher literacy rates than most if not all of the rest of Latin America and it's health care system works better than most if not all developing countries
Maybe when he sends his kids there or uses it himself, I'd believe that.
From Babalu Blog (where you can view pics of clinics),
Every single time the island of Cuba and fidel castro's revolution are covered anywhere in the media one of the points always mentioned is Cuba's free healthcare. You can practically time it. If it's in print, you get the lead issue in the first and second paragraph, a mention of fidel castro or one of his cronies in the third paragraph and then the plug for the lauded free healthcare available to Cubans in the fourth. I dont think Ive ever read an article about castro or Cuba where the "healthcare" isnt mentioned.
Every single castro supporter clings to this healthcare thing like it is some kind of holy grail. In a debate, the fact that Cuba has the most political prisoners in the world is ignored. The fact that Cubans on the island lack even the most basic of necessities is ignored. Tourism apartheid is ignored. Everything is ignored save for the free healthcare and 100% literacy.
This is Orwell's Cruel Pacifist at work. The pro-Baath anti-war demonstrators fascinated with tyranny and oppression in return for literacy and healthcare. They claim it's a war of Blood for Oil but thrilled with blood and prison camps for literacy and health care.
It's a brutal way to go....
As far as your last point, I think on the embargo, I've blogged on SecState Rice's commission on Cuba. We'll be stuck with turmoil there sooner rather than later. Castro's falling apart (read the Miami Herald link in my post) and his plan to hand off power to his brother.
The embargo.. JFK used proxies for the Bay of Pigs. Much like Carter used proxies in Afganistan, and Clinton tried to avoid using troops altogather and relied on air power or cruise missles.
I'm becoming revisionist enough now that Curtis LeMay was right about Cuba. We should have invaded ourselves.
Embargos and sanctions don't hurt the tyrants, just the people.
Lets see what the plan is for Iran because if Lindy gets elected that's what he'll have to deal with.... he probably thinks the Mullahs' education and health programs compensate for planned genocide of the Jews... just as his fellow Christians at the Christian Century condemed FDR for provoking war with Hitler; who after all put the Germans back to work with Healthcare benefits and good edcuation programs through the Hitler youth.
Bill, one of Scott's children HAS gone to Cuba to study, and all three of them studied in Mexico as well so I think they can be a better judge of the educational systems there than yourself, unless you have gone there or sent YOUR kids. I think you're just upset because you've realized Scott can pose a significant threat to Roskam should he win the primary, and are trying everything you can to get duckworth, the weakest one of the three in my opinion, elected so that Roskam can win.
No, Anon 8:03 I'd love to see Scott win. He would be a bloggers delight.
I'm sure those kids at Wheaton over at the Right Blog would dig up some pics of him with Communist dignitaries.
Did Scott's kids get to pick sugar cane out in the fields with the rest of their classmates or where they exempt from the forced labor?
Or maybe like those Finnish-American kids who's parents took him back to Russia in the 20s only to have their parents get bullets in the back of the head in the 30s. (The graves have been found recently).
No, I fear a Duckworth win because I would find that a hard choice.
My heart would be with Duckworth.
My brain with Roskam.
I usually let my heart decide.
Wow Bill. What planet are you from? "Most Democrats are anti-military" you say?
Are you a Democrat? I didn't think so... so how would you know this?
Do you know it by what you read from the he said-she said sensationalized media filter? Puh-leez... (And I thought conservatives kept whining the media was somehow "too liberal"... I wouldn't think you would believe anything the media writes anyway.)
Before you go dissing half of America as being "anti-military" try thinking before you open your virtual mouth.
I'm a proud Democrat and the proud grandson, brother and nephew of brave veterans.
You can take your anti-Democratic malarchy and shove it where the sun don't shine Bill!
What "most Democrats" are against are presidents, veeps, SecDefs, SecStates, NSA advisors and aides who lie to the American people in order to start an unnecessary war in which 25,000 (and counting) of our brave soldiers are killed or maimed with no end in sight. (All while those same liars cut benefits our military brethren have earned through their sacrifices.)
How anyone can overlook the GOP's behavior in the years since 9/11 and have the gall to whine "the Party should rebuke him for uttering an outlandish and disgraceful comment." We'll rebuke Lindy's comment the moment your conservative lapdogs in Congress impeach the liars at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Anon: I voted almost perfectly straight Democratic tickets from 1972 through 2000. George Ryan one of my sad, sorry, exceptions.
My Brother-in-Law is a Democratic party preceint captain. I feel like I know the party, at least in the west burbs, well...
I don't think this will work , but i'm trying to be the one to end a blog, but mr. bill baar always seems to want to have the last word...if you "let your heart vote for Duckworth, even though your brain would vote for Roskam" stop letting your @ss do the talking please...and this may be an ad-hominem against Mr. Baar, but he seems to be doing the same to others so i don't feel too bad.
Anon 7:30
Mr Baar?
Bill. Lindy is not anti-military. You are warping what he said to your own liking.
If you believe popular opinion, being in the military means your pro-war and pro-republican. This would turn off some of the uninformed voters out there that subscribe to this train of thought. It's one of the reasons the media jumped all over a war-time vet running on the democratic ticket. (not unusual, just not well publicized) Don't believe the hype. Most democrats are not anti-military, despite what Rove and Limbaugh say. (neither are vets...)
I am in the military. I've been in combat. I'm sick of the politicians and media using us to their own advantage. They can say they support us until they are blue in the face. Talk is cheap. They buy magnetic ribbons for the back of their SUV's and think that somehow supports us. It does nothing.
I'm sick of hearing about how weak democrats are on national security and how we are too weak to fight. Republicans like to think that they are hard as nails and that Democrats like to hide behind therapists and lawyers. This is far from the truth friend. Most of the upper eschelon administration that are making the descisions regarding the war have never served a day in their life. But boy, do they love to wave that flag.
You set yourself up to be righteous and to be doing the right thing by calling Lindy anti-military but end up looking like a fool through the eyes of a soldier. At least this soldiers' eyes. Who knows, maybe you did serve. You might be a veteran for all I know. I haven't searched RLAS for you yet... It's possible. But it doesn't matter. You've attempted to smear a good man's name and warp his words. People using the war for political gain is disgusting.
Are you yourself really pro-military? I'm at the Batavia VFW all the time. I don't recall seeing your face. Come on down, there is plenty to do.
tim.sheimo@us.army.mil
Post a Comment