411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 56

Posted by Brandon Crow on 08.27.2007

I need to relax. My doctor told me doing F or F was giving me heart conditions!

Another glorious Monday morning! You know what that means—it's time for Week 56 of Fact or Fiction, Politics style!

Apparently, my tantrums and ever-so-slight mental breakdown over the past few weeks regarding the lack of 0 for 4 has caught the attention of some kind-hearted people. Krunchy Law, long-time zone reader shot me a quick email offering a "Bush Administration-like" remedy: "If in a few weeks you can't seem to achieve the 0 for 4, I have a solution for you if you wish. I will debate myself in fact or fiction. That way it would guarantee you an "0 for 4" and then you could get on with your life."

I also heard from the Zen Master himself…no, not Phil Jackson. And no, not the Dalai Lama either. Better than those two! I was honored this past week with an email from the guru himself, former F or F host, Ryan Latimer! Ryan had kind, soothing words for me: "You're much too hard on yourself, grasshopper..."

Wow…I didn't know Ryan had taken up studying fortune cookies down in Florida!

Anyway, I shall take the advice of those who care so dearly about my state of being. I shall follow their wellness policy…

This week, you shall hear no griping from me. Whatever the scores, I shall simply announce them with a "Bush smirk" upon my face.

This week, we have Don Cooper, a US military man currently stationed overseas matching wits with Brad Millar, a Politics Zone reader, and a writer for the Games Zone. Good luck, gentlemen!

Ding, Ding!

1. The Iraq War, as prosecuted under George W. Bush, will surpass Vietnam in memoriam as the biggest foreign policy blunder in American history as well as THE exemplar of a wasted, deadbeat war.

Don Cooper: FICTION. For starters, about 14 times as many Americans were killed in Vietnam and we were there for about ten years. Now, in five years, I may be changing my mind. However, as of right now, there is simply no way that I see this war being a bigger blunder than Vietnam since the only real way we can measure how bad a blunder it is, is by observing the consequences. If you tripped off a three-story building and didn't break any bones, it still wouldn't be worse than tripping off a curb and breaking your arm. It's way too early to be judging how this war will go down in history.

Brad Millar: FICTION. Wow. Big question out the gate, huh? Well, this isn't the Video Game section, that's for darn sure. Crow's Note: (Hey Dorothy! You ain't in Kansas anymore! Ha!)

First off, let's look at the numbers. The Vietnam War (at least our involvement in it) went from 1965 to 1975. There were 1.5 million dead, 58,202 of those were American soldiers. In the War on Terror, we're nowhere near 10 years; we've only had 4,105 deaths, and killed 51,302. Civilian casualties are the highest, ranging anywhere from 392,979 and 942,636 Iraqi deaths.

During Vietnam, there were hundreds of protests that led to violence, and more deaths. We had Americans bombing American facilities, Johnson didn't run for a second term due to the Vietnam war, and an entire generation disenchanted with the government. So far, we've had some protests, but no violence from Americans. Bush was frigging elected to a second term, and there is still a good third of the population out there that thinks he's doing a good job. The War on Terror, and the Iraq War have come nowhere CLOSE to the problems of the Vietnam War at all.

History will finally tell what kind of a blunder Iraq was up against Vietnam, but as it stands right now, we haven't even come close.

1 for 1. Those are some really good answers! I will say this though: most of the time, when I hear this line of reasoning (number of deaths), the ones proffering it has not taken into consideration that Vietnam was 30 to 35 years ago. Our medicines, as well medical practices and emergency life-saving procedures have improved dramatically in 35 years. Many who now survive would have surely died 35 years ago. Comparing straight numeric figures isn't as accurate or sound as many would think.

2. Recently, Bush acknowledged "a certain level of frustration with the leadership" in Iraq, namely Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. Bush then went on to say, "if the government doesn't respond to the demands of the [Iraqi] people, they will replace the government." This is as close as we'll ever get to an admission by Bush that his dream of bringing democracy to Iraq has failed.

Don Cooper: FACT. I'm conflicted on this one. Definitely this is the closest to an admission of failure for those who are waiting for one. But in Bush's mind, I don't think he is considering it as such. It's probably more of an affirmation that he's going to do whatever it takes to establish a stable government in a region that really isn't prone to stability under any form of government.

It gets the "Fact" label because Bush will probably NEVER admit that his dream is a failure.

Brad Millar: FICTION. I think that George W. Bush would say, and meant this comment, as saying that if the Iraqis didn't like the government in power, they'd just elect a new one. That would be the biggest shining example of Democracy. If the Iraqis do that, Bush will claim that everything worked. If the government falls, they'll just blame it on the Iraqi government as well. In Bush's world, Democracy never fails. Just governments that take month long vacations when major things need to be taken care of. Like... um... ours.

1 for 2. Again, great responses fellas! I just want to add that "in Bush's mind," as both respondents were so careful to explore, his presidency has been perfect, absolutely flawless. Any possible errors have purely been the fault of others…after all, how could he be wrong since God wanted him to be president…

3. The latest decision from Barack Obama's camp to pull out of many upcoming debates and candidates' forums was painted by David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, as "we simply cannot run the kind of campaign we want and need to, engaging with voters in the early states and February 5, if our schedule is dictated by dozens of forums and debates." This claim is actually a cover; they are in fact trying to keep Obama from giving more anemic performances at these events.

Don Cooper: FICTION. But with some facts mixed in. I think the main reason they are pulling Obama from these events is to keep him from saying silly things (like his foreign policy statements) that show his inexperience and distances him from the more moderate democrats. Right now he is coming across as na?ve more than anemic. But definitely they are trying to keep him from looking bad.

Look, this guy does not need to give the other, more experienced candidates more ammo to use against him. It's the old "you have the right to remain silent" kind of thing, because right now, anything he says "can and will be used against him" during this election.

Brad Millar: FICTION. I don't think that Obama has given any anemic performances. I think that they are probably conceding the fact that Obama is not going to be the Democratic candidate for the presidency. By pulling him out of these debates, he can focus on what he is REALLY good at: getting people excited, speaking to the masses and doing the whole handshake/baby kiss thing. He isn't a master debater (no pun intended), but he isn't bad either. He's average.

So, let Hillary go out there and continue to debate, which increases the chance that she could mess up, hurting herself. If Obama isn't out there saying anything in these debates, that means he isn't saying anything good or bad, and he can just let the other candidates hang themselves for the moment. If Hillary holds out and wins the nomination, then he's a good VP candidate, and still protected for the next election. And if Hillary hangs herself, he can quickly swoop in and take advantage.

2 for 3. Strong, thoughtful responses from both. I am thoroughly enjoying this week's F or F, even though my chances for a 0 for 4, or 4 for 4 went out the window way back when… see Ryan, I'm taking your sagely advice!

4. In a recent speech to the VFW, Fred Thompson claimed the U.S . military is "stretched too thin, and our equipment is wearing out." He then added, in an obvious jab at Bill Clinton, that "leaders in the 1990's took a vacation" after winning the Cold War. This slight is unwarranted, unsound and untrue.

Don Cooper: FICTION. Certainly it is not unwarranted because this is an election cycle and that's the kind of stuff we will be hearing from both sides. It's not really unsound or untrue because there were major cuts to the military during the Clinton years that prevented the military from getting new equipment. I don't see how these statements could possibly be considered unacceptable when so many candidates use the same mudslinging tactics. How many politicians on the other side have compared George W. to Hitler? Crow's Note: (Is it "mudslinging" if it's true? Just kidding…maybe…)

So, specifically in regards to the military, the term "vacation" is tolerable for campaign speak. As far as the rest of Clinton's presidency, well, he certainly wasn't on vacation (heck, insert Clinton/Lewinsky joke here).

Brad Millar: FACT. FINALLY! Finally I can say Fact. President Bush has taken more vacation time than any other President in history. Ever. You have a better chance seeing the President near his ranch than the White House. Bill Clinton might have downsized the military, but we were safe, the economy was in great shape, people had jobs, and the federal deficit was coming down.

Clinton used the military to fight. We retaliated for the bombings of the WTC and our embassies abroad. We went into Somalia to stop human atrocities. Clinton did a pretty good job of keeping the country together, using the armed forces effectively, and getting hummers while balancing the budget.

It's the same old story of how nobody in politics can accept responsibility for their actions, or mis-actions. It's Clinton's fault that we were attacked on 9/11. It's Bush's fault that the Democratic majority that ran on the idea that they would get us out of Iraq can't do it. It's the Iraqis' fault that their country isn't secure. It's enough to make you make that write-in vote for your crazy Uncle Eddie, because he'll pull the troops out of Iraq and put them on his front lawn to keep the kids off.

2 for 4. Valid points on both sides once more. One quick correction though- Reagan took more vacation days than Bush, but Bush still has about 15 months to go. Consider Reagan Hank Aaron and George W. Barry Bonds…personally, I think 756 will be achieved over Christmas and by next summer, Bush will be swatting number 911...(yes, wordplay very much intended).

Great week for F or F. Hearty thanks to both Don and Brad. You two can come back and do F or F any time. If anyone out there would like to contact Don from the military or Brad from the Games Zone they'd be happy to hear from you.

Next week, two more combatants coming your way! By the way, I'm still taking names from readers who want in! Simply email me! See you in seven.