Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jim Vaughn For Congress

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jim Vaughn For Congress

    As of today at 4:00pm Pacific Time, I am officially a candidate for US Representative for the 8th CD. (Seattle area). I am presenting a quick view of my political situation followed by my views on Iraq. This is by far the best forum I have seen. I am open to your thoughts.

    Welcome to jimvaughnforcongress.com

    I have been repeatedly attacked as a Republican calling myself a Democrat. The fact is, I am a no-nonsense, conservative Democrat and others have compared me to Scoop Jackson. I will stand up to my party when I disagree. The truth is that I am not happy with either party. I am angry with the Bush administration and how the war has been managed. I am also disgusted when I read the letter titled "Democrats can turn U.S. around."

    Democrats took control of Congress two years ago, promising to solve our problems and get us out of Iraq. The new speaker of the House even had a plan to solve the problem of the increasing cost of gas. It was about $2.50 a gallon then. Inflation and the price of food were increasing about 2.5 percent to 3 percent a year. The stock market was growing, unemployment was down and the sales of new homes and automobiles were setting new records. Two years after the Democrats took control, gas is almost $4 a gallon. Inflation? Food and other essentials cost more each month. We are still in Iraq (and should be). The stock market is full of speculators, unemployment is up and we all know how the sales of homes and automobiles are doing.

    Can we trust the liberal Progressive Democrats to turn the U.S. around, when they have done nothing for the past two years but whine about the war and point fingers at the Republicans? It is time for change. The Democratic party needs to change leadership and elect individuals that will quit whining and turn the country around. We need solid, common sense, no-nonsense, conservative Democrats.

    Exiting Iraq: As a former armor officer and military analyst, my position on the Iraq War is that if it were left to the generals it would have been over by now and our service members would be home. The proper planning, adequate troop strength mission planning, mission execution and exit strategy is the business of the Pentagon not our politicians.
    Regarding Colin Powell the New York Times stated, “… there should be an honored place in history's pantheon for statesmen whose ideas and instincts turned out to be right - even though they were ignored…. He did, however, offer cautions and reservations. The doctrine that has long been associated with his name is that any military intervention should have a well-defined mission, use enough force that it can be accomplished cleanly and successfully and include a clear exit strategy. Mr. Powell argued, before the invasion, for more time to line up a broader coalition of allies and for more extensive planning for postwar security and occupation.”
    Saddam Hussein, as bad as he was, had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11. His secular Ba'athist state was hated by fundamentalist Muslims. By kicking him out under the pretext of his "weapons of mass destruction," we have empowered Shi'ite Muslim fanatics who want to make Iraq an Islamic state, and greatly worsened the terrorist threat to the United States and its citizens.

    More than four years of war has destroyed much of Iraq, disrupted its infrastructure, killed more Iraqis than Saddam did in all his decades in power, eliminated the religious freedom which existed before our invasion, caused previously thriving Christian and Jewish communities to flee the country, poisoned hundreds of thousands with depleted uranium, denied security to the citizenry, and left most Iraqis worse off than before we “liberated” them. Of course it has also cost thousands of American lives, left tens of thousands of young American soldiers so badly wounded they will never be the same, caused about half a million veterans to come home with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, anger, nightmares, and various mental illnesses, and added about two trillion dollars to the debt load our grandchildren must bear. Because of repetitive tours for the Reserves and National Guard, even the lucky ones who came back in one piece have paid a heavy price. Jobs have been lost, marriages have been dissolved, children have been estranged, homes have been foreclosed, and natural disasters like Katrina have not been adequately dealt with.

    Everyone seems to agree that the beginning of an American withdrawal from Iraq will mark a turning point. What divides us is the speed and extent of the drawdown and whether it should be driven by a timetable or by a strategy that seeks to shape events.
    The issue is not the mechanics of withdrawal. Rather, the debate should be over consequences: whether, in the end, withdrawal will be perceived as a forced retreat or a carefully planned strategy designed to enhance international security. If we withdraw, leaving nothing behind but a failed state and chaos, the consequences will be disastrous for the region and for America's position in the world.
    Radical Islam is more than the sum of individual terrorist acts. It is an ideology in which Islam's radical wing seeks to sweep away secularism, pluralistic values and Western institutions wherever Muslims live. Its is fueled by the conviction that we are on the decline and lack the will to resist. Any event that seems to confirm these convictions compounds the terrorist revolution.
    If a fundamentalist regime is installed in Baghdad or in any of the other major cities, such as Mosul or Basra, if terrorists secure substantial territory for training and sanctuaries, or if chaos and civil war mark the end of the American intervention, Islamic militants will gain momentum wherever there are significant Islamic populations or nonfundamentalist Islamic governments. No country within reach of jihad would be spared the consequences of the resulting upheavals sparked by the many individual centers of fanaticism that make up the jihad. In appropriate action will shrivel U.S. credibility around the world. Our leadership and the respect accorded to our views on other regional issues from Palestine to Iran would be weakened. The relief from military efforts would be brief before even greater crises descended on us.
    A responsible exit strategy must emerge from the integration of political and security elements; above all else, the consolidation of the national government. Real progress will have been made when the Iraqi armed forces view themselves and are seen by the population as defenders of the nation's interest, not sectarian or regional interests. They will have become a national force when they are able to carry the fight into Sunni areas and grow willing to disarm militias in the Shiite regions from which the majority of them are recruited.
    To delegate to military commanders a time table for withdrawals places too great a burden on them. Their views regarding security need to be blended with judgments regarding the political and collateral consequences that a major initiative inevitably produces. We need to be aware of the grave consequences of failure.
    The psychological impact, most immediately on the Iraqi political structure, will be crucial. Will the initial reductions , set to begin sometime after last week's elections, be viewed as the first step of a rapid and complete withdrawal? If so, the political factions in Iraq will maneuver to protect their immediate assets in preparation for the expected test of strength between the various groups. American preferences for a secular and inclusive government in a unified Iraq will shrink. It will be difficult to broaden the base of a government at the very moment it thinks it is losing its key military support. In this situation, a limited withdrawal not formally geared to a fixed timetable and designed to placate American public opinion could acquire an irreversible character.
    If the experience of Vietnam is any guide, the numbers of returning troops will test the U.S. domestic policies. Pressures to continue or accelerate the withdrawals could be magnified so that all progress will be lost. I am concerned that this scenario will cause the Iraqi terrorist factions to achieve national recognition for accelerating the U.S. withdrawal, perhaps by turning on us either politically or with some of their militia.
    The United States cannot withdraw without establishing some international consensus. The passions, convictions and rivalries of the factions in Iraq will continue. A regional system will emerge in Iraq in one form or another. We must meld political and security objectives prevent the creation of radical states.
    The countries that are relevant to Iraq's security must be given a sense of participation in the next stage of Iraq policy. Political institutions in Iraq need to be built into an international and regional system. Otherwise the United States will have to function alone as the permanent policeman, a role that any projected Iraqi government is likely to reject in the long run. The time has come not only to define the strategic future in Iraq but also to broaden the base of political consultation in the region at large.
    A political organization, similar to the United Nations that includes key European allies, India (because of its Muslim population), Pakistan, Turkey and some neighbors of Iraq should be convoked after the Iraqi election. Political discussions between the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad and Iranian authorities regarding Iraq have already been approved. This group would be to advise on the political evolution of Iraq, to broaden the basis of legitimacy of the government and to reflect a broad international interest in the stability and progress of the region. As time goes on, the group could become a forum to deal with other issues affecting Middle East stability, including some of the causes of Islamic radicalism. A political framework is not a substitute for a successful military outcome, but military success cannot be sustained without it.
    As a part of our exit strategy I would like to see a transition in which our troops are replaced by peacekeepers from the United Nations and Iraq 's neighbors. To make that happen, our government will have to:
    1. Give up control of the rebuilding projects (let Halliburton bid like anybody else, and let them hire Iraqis for a change),
    2. Give up the 14 permanent military bases we are building in Iraq.
    An article on CNS.com states, "We believe that it has been overwhelmingly U.S. taxpayer money that has funded Iraq reconstruction over the last five years, despite Iraq earning billions of dollars in oil revenue over that time period that have ended up in non-Iraqi banks," they added.

    Iraqi oil exports are over 1.9 million barrels of oil per day, with revenues estimated at $41 billion in 2007 and $9.4 billion in 2008 (year to date).

    Extrapolating the $9.4 billion of oil revenues for the first two months of 2008 yields an estimate of $56.4 billion for all of 2008," they wrote. That figure will probably be low given the predictions for oil prices to continue to rise over the coming year. In essence, we believe that Iraq will accrue at least $100.0 billion in oil revenues in 2007 and 2008.

    "It's totally unacceptable that there's no decent accounting for their money," Levin said in a statement. "But the problem is our money. Why are we spending our money five years later when they have a surplus? That's just extraordinary."

    According to a Jan. 30, 2008 GAO report, the Defense Department's obligations through fiscal year 2007 include about $378.1 billion for operations in and around Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom.”
    In the interest of saving money, we also need to address our presence in other countries. After 60 years, there is no reason for us to still be occupying Germany and Japan . I would bring home our troops. This change in mission and deployment would allow the defense budget to be reduced substantially. We now have a trillion dollars in new weapons on the books for future procurement -- useless nukes and unneeded cold war weapons. At the same time, we have thousands of soldiers and their families on food stamps. Our priorities must change. The defense budget no longer bears any relationship to our national security. It has become little more than corporate welfare for the weapons manufacturers Eisenhower warned us about... and a subsidy for the transnational financial interests our military protects. In the long run, defense spending can be cut by more than 50% while increasing our national security. Because of the enormous costs of the Iraq war, achieving this goal will take time. It is time for congress to do something.

  • #2
    Jim,

    First off, welcome to the board and good luck with your campaign.

    I copied your post to this forum so that way I'd have an opportunity to ask you some questions about some of the non-Iraq rhetoric that you used in the intro of this post.

    1. You speak to the increasing cost of gas and food. The two have a common culprit that is responsible for some of the increase - ethanol. Will you vote against any bill that mandates the use of ethanol? Corn-based ethanol uses more energy in its production than what it provides, meaning that it results in more greenhouse gases - it is not "green." Additionally, it uses a substantial amount of corn, raising the prices of all agricultural products because it induces farmers to switch from other crops to growing corn. As a related issue, would you vote against the scandalous farm bill that is in front of Congress right now? This $300bn bill limits production and competition.

    2. A related question is more open-ended: how do you propose to decrease the cost of gas? Please addresses how you'd vote on legislation that would make it easier to build refineries as well as nuclear power plants?

    3. You state on your website that "We need to put a stop to investments in Emerging Markets." You also highlight the trade deficit. Are you aware that the flipside of a trade deficit is a capital account surplus? In other words, other countries send more investments into the United States than we send elsewhere, to include emerging markets. So, it one sense, we have a win-win situation where we import goods for less money that we could purchase them in the United States and we receive positive investments from foreign countries. Can you explain why this is bad for the US? Can you address that if you produced some kind of legislation restricting the free choice of Americans on where to invest and why foreign countries wouldn't retaliate, meaning that net investment in the US would decrease and make us worse off.

    4. Lastly, I notice in your agriculture section that you want to protect "small farmers". If small farmers are less efficient than agrobusiness, then why should taxpayers/consumers be forced to support less efficient means of production? This ties back into your food inflation comment above - you state that it is bad and then appear to support a solution that will only contribute to inflation.

    For the record, I no longer reside in Washington state, although I loved my time in the Puget Sound area. The summers were paradise.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

    Comment


    • #3
      1. I will vote against mandates for ethanol for all the obvious reasons.
      2. I am in the process of restoring a 16 acrea farm. Agriculture is personal concern. Bottom line is that I cannot support any bill that limits production and competition. However, I will support any effort that focuses on buying locally produced farm products. Helps the local economy and with the price of gasoline locally grown should help reduce that amount of gasoline consumption.
      3. In regards to the trade deficit. Not everyone is a rocket scientist and yet they want to get paid big bucks for non-technical jobs. Manufacturing is a means for individuals to make a comfortable living. When foreign countries invest in our economy the profits go back to them rather than staying here. They are not paying taxes to our government on the profits. Not a good situation. In regards to gasoline, I believe that we need to put a cap on gasoline prices and on our economy. We need to control inflation. Industry needs a economically stable environment in which to grow. We also need to look at all forms of alternative energy. Nuclear energy is critical, especially since the technology exists to recycle nuclear waste. We also have the technology to drill without destroying the environment. We have the technology today to turn our planet into a Garden of Eden. We need to learn to live with in the cycle of nature. We need to recycle, replenish and learn to live with mother nature. Our cities need to grow up rather than out. Ecotopia is a broad brush picture of what we can achieve.

      As far as the small farmer, the majority don't need assistance. What we need is less regulation and taxation. A farmer needs the land to survive and government needs to leave them alone.

      Thanks for you input Jim

      Comment


      • #4
        A couple points-

        Profits- they need to be able to get their profits back otherwise it makes no point to invest their capital in US economy. Furthermore, if you place restrictions on their profits, they may not be able to purchase goods and trade from US for use in their own countries. Additionally, it would encourage other countries to impose similar restrictions on US companies' profits. It would hurt US far more than you realize.

        Farm subsidies- The need for subsidies are over. It was originally design to encourage farmers from wasting their farmland too much. It would be better spent on energy subsidies such as encouraging the use of solar power or wind power generation.

        As for farmers, fine you want less regulation and taxation, then be responsible with your farming. Make sure you do not engage in the self destruction practices that was responsible for the infamous Dust Bowls back in the 1930s leading to massive migration of "Okies".

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by jimvaughnforcon View Post
          1. I will vote against mandates for ethanol for all the obvious reasons.
          2. I am in the process of restoring a 16 acrea farm. Agriculture is personal concern. Bottom line is that I cannot support any bill that limits production and competition. However, I will support any effort that focuses on buying locally produced farm products. Helps the local economy and with the price of gasoline locally grown should help reduce that amount of gasoline consumption.
          3. In regards to the trade deficit. Not everyone is a rocket scientist and yet they want to get paid big bucks for non-technical jobs. Manufacturing is a means for individuals to make a comfortable living. When foreign countries invest in our economy the profits go back to them rather than staying here. They are not paying taxes to our government on the profits. Not a good situation. In regards to gasoline, I believe that we need to put a cap on gasoline prices and on our economy. We need to control inflation. Industry needs a economically stable environment in which to grow. We also need to look at all forms of alternative energy. Nuclear energy is critical, especially since the technology exists to recycle nuclear waste. We also have the technology to drill without destroying the environment. We have the technology today to turn our planet into a Garden of Eden. We need to learn to live with in the cycle of nature. We need to recycle, replenish and learn to live with mother nature. Our cities need to grow up rather than out. Ecotopia is a broad brush picture of what we can achieve.

          As far as the small farmer, the majority don't need assistance. What we need is less regulation and taxation. A farmer needs the land to survive and government needs to leave them alone.

          Thanks for you input Jim
          Jim,

          Local grown food isn't necessarily better for the environment and may not even save on gas. Locally grown food may require more fertilizer, and so you have ship/truck/rail the fertilizer to the local farm = gas. You have to produce the fertilizer = gas. You may lose out on economies of scale in transportation - many small farmers growing an inefficient plant locally vs. an agrobusiness that can bulk ship vs. the small farmers. There's plenty of other potential inputs that you could examine the carbon footprint of to determine if you're going to have the desired impact, but this oped from the NYT lays out the topic pretty well.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/op...cwilliams.html

          As far as foreign financial capital investments in the US, these investments are used to fund small business expansion and creation. Who earns and keeps the profits from this? It funds the same at the medium and large business levels. Who earns and keeps the profits from this? What about the salaries earned by the workers in the jobs that are created from this net foreign financial capital position in the US. Lastly, because of the increasingly interconnected global economy, it is dangerous rhetoric to try and talk as if you can separate out Americans. The following article demonstrates how connected our economy can be with others and how we are better off because of this.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/bu...s/28scene.html

          In terms of price caps on gasoline - did you not remember the 1970s?



          Price controls don't work! They only worsen the problem. If you'd like, I can post pictures on how price controls only worsened problems in Iraq. I can show how they didn't work for the dictator Chavez . . . for the dictator Mugabe.
          "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

          Comment


          • #6
            On reproductive rights ...

            [QUOTE=jimvaughnforcon;501665]As of today at 4:00pm Pacific Time, I am officially a candidate for US Representative for the 8th CD. (Seattle area). I am presenting a quick view of my political situation followed by my views on Iraq. This is by far the best forum I have seen. I am open to your thoughts.

            Welcome to jimvaughnforcongress.com

            Hi Jim,

            Congratulations for taking the plunge on a hideously frenzied pursuit.

            I'm impressed with your Web site. I do have a comment on the abortion issue.

            I would love it if, just once, someone who is pro-choice would not feel the need to insert the requisite "abortion is always a tragedy" line. It's really not -- not to some women.

            If you are of the mind that an embryo or fetus is not a "human being" or "child" and have decided to terminate a pregnany, you are very obviously not thinking it's a "tragedy."

            If you believe an embryo or fetus is a "human being" or "child" and should be protected as such, you will most likely NOT be arranging for an abortion.

            I understand your concerns about alienating the right-wingers, but the more you give them this sort of linguistic rope, the more they'll hang you with it.

            With respect to late-term abortions, if you are truly pro-choice, you should also realize that women don't terminate pregnancies in the 6th or 7th month just because they've changed their minds. Either there is a direct threat to her life or health, or there is a fetal condition which will render the infant stillborn or in terminal condition on birth. No woman should be forced to endure two or three months of pregnancy knowing she will deliver a dead fetus, or one that will die soon afterward.

            This is a medical decision left solely between her and her physician. Again, don't let the rhetoric from the right sway you.

            As far as dispensing birth control, I'm not sure why it's appropriate to allow religious or "moral" objections when someone is licensed by a state agency in the health field.

            Other than that, I appreciate your openmindedness on reproductive rights. I'm sure Sally helped you come around. If right-wing conservatives can learn anything from a campaign like yours, it's to actually consult with people you know, who can tell you what the real world is like.

            Comment

            Working...
            X