From: PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:57:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.163546.27823@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>
>>>Frankly, I've always found the whole idea that George Bush would start
>>>a war to get reelected just a bit incredible (as in not credible).
>>>People have been saying this sort of thing ever since Desert Storm.
>>>Personally, if we found ourselves once again in the position of
>>>attacking Iraq, I would probably wind up voting for Bush.  Not because
>>>of that, but because we would immediately see all these people on the
>>>other side coming out with claims about how starting the war again was
>>>a 'political ploy'.  I would probably vote for Bush in reaction
>>>against those people.
>>>
>>
>>The very possibility (if not likelihood) that so many Americans would react
>>the way you say you would -- vote for Bush, in the event of renewed US/Iraq
>>hostilities, as a way of expressing support -- is precisely what makes
>>it possible (if not likely) that Bush is tempted to pull such a ploy.
>>He did say he'd do _anything_ to get re-elected, right?
>
>Nonsense!  That's not even what I said.  Go back and read it again.  I
>would probably vote for Bush as a reaction against all the 'Great
>Satan Bush' supporters on the other side.  I decided who to vote for
>for governor down here by looking at who was throwing the LEAST mud.
>Anne Richards got my vote, but just barely.  Is it any wonder that
>politics in this country is as screwed up as it is when there are
>folks like you out there who think it is somehow 'normal' for a
>politician to start a war to bolster support just because he happens
>to be someone whose policies you disagree with?
>

Sorry, but I don't see any distinction between voting "for Bush in reaction to"
his detractors and voting for him as a signal of support in the event of
renewed hostilities.  Anyway, let's use your own terms:  I think it's
ludicrous to cast a vote for four more years of presidential inaction
simply "in reaction to" foreign or domestic zealots who think Bush or the U.S.
is the Great Satan.  There, does that sound better?  Not to mention the
idiocy of such a p.o.v., given that any renewed conflict with Iraq would
necessarily be brief.  Are you willing to put up with another full term of
inaction on the budget and economy -- you yourself seem ambivalent about Bush's
effectiveness in this area -- just to have the honor of casting a vote for
our beloved Commander in Chief in a time of Middle East pseudo-crisis?

Now allow me a clarification of my own.  I by no means think it's "normal"
for a president to use the military to manipulate public opinion.  That's
the whole point of my earlier post;  it's not normal, it's _sick_.  And this
wouldn't be the first time it's happened.  Ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin?

>Feh!

Feh yourself!

>
>--
>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
> in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Tom G.