http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/bachmanns-claim-that-china-blinded-us-satellites/2011/10/03/gIQAHvm7IL_blog.html
The Washington Post recently came out with an article stating that Congresswomen Michele Bachman made the claim that China ‘blinded’ U.S. satellites. Normally these kind of statements would be disregarded in everyday news. Bachman, however, is currently running for the republican nomination for the 2012 presidential election, and anything she says should be looked at closley. In order to evaluate Bachman's statements, two things need to be considered. Firstly, is there any truth behind Bachman's? The article suggest that Bachman misspoke when stating that U.S satellites were ‘blinded’. In reality, the article seems to hint that the satellites might have been slightly damaged by Chinese tracking systems during routine tracking. Specific instances of foul play by the chinese did not seem apparent. Moreover, one must consider what underlying issues Bachman was trying to address. It is hard to understand why Bachman would use China as an example to illustrate national security threats. Bachman's statements, however, are surely making reaching accusations that appear to be misleading. While the idea of the Chinese military tracking U.S. satellites might seem unsettling, one can be assured that the U.S. military uses the same tactics to insure national security.
In all, the misleading nature of Bachman’s statements is the most concerning part of this article. Bachman based her statements on unclear incidents that occurred in 2006. With little lack knowledge about the subject and the open ears of thousands of people Bachman made an unforced error. In making this error, Bachman showed no restraint nor sense of responsibility. In order to run for president, a candidate must understand that everything they say will be looked at closely. By being careless with her statements, Bachman proved that she is not ready to run for president. The general public, however, might oversee this kind of miscue. Politicians misspeak all the time and are able to get away with it. Will this be the case for Bachman?
This particular article on just one of the examples of Michelle Bachmann’s ineptitude when it comes to foreign relations should be considered a red flag not just that she’s running for the American presidency—but that just anybody can. The President of the United States, whether Democratic, Republican or a rare third party sensation, must know they are at the forefront of international relations and represent the country as a whole in the media as well as behind closed doors. In any event, considering the United State’s current debt to China, it’s not wise to be pointing fingers at one of our major trade partners. China has the potential to pose a threat to US power in the future, but the current scenario is more cooperative than hostile. The GOP and country as a whole would be foolish to allow someone who speaks without careful consideration of each and every word issued to the media. In response to the final question, I believe that Michelle Bachmann’s political career has gone far enough and while she may still go on in the elections, she will not culminate as the next president—and first female president—of the United States of America; we’re smarter than that, right?
ReplyDeleteThe polls have shown that many American’s agree that Michelle Bachman in not a viable candidate for president. Whether this is due to her disregard for honest reporting, we can only speculate. With issues concerning foreign policy, the economy and “harder issues” for the average person to understand; it is less likely for the general public to grasp the fallacy in politicians statements. “Easier issues” for the general public to understand and form opinions on, such as abortion, marriage, etc., are more likely to draw outrage, even if these “harder issues” will make more of a impact on their lives and therefore should be granted more attention. Some of the GOP candidates have showed this to be true; take Herman Cain who has proposed the 9-9-9 tax plan. Cain has risen in the polls telling Americans that tax reform is as simple as 9-9-9. What he has failed to inform voters is that his tax plan would increase taxes on 84% of Americans and decrease taxes for the wealthy. Melissa Labant, an accountant for American’s Institute of CPA’s, estimated that Warren Buffets taxes would decrease from paying 17.4 percent to paying only 1 percent. How is this? Cain’s 9-9-9 plan does not tax capital gains. Last year Buffet paid 4.9 million in taxes, and under Cain's plan he would pay a estimated $440,000. Cain has argued that his plan will cut taxes for most Americans and it seems that many have taken him on his word. What it gets down to, is the majority of American do not know enough about these issues to be able to know when a politician is not being honest about policy implications. It is up to the media and scholars to call attention to these issues.
ReplyDeleteWe all know that politicians make errors on a day to day basis, whether it be in the form of a debate response, interviews, etc. However, when one is fighting to represent a particular party in an election, the facts must be checked and double-checked. Not only must these hopeful candidates supply the correct information, but more importantly they must be able to either have prove for their statements or issue a retraction of their falsified statement. This is not the first time that a political candidate has made an error, but what makes me have faith in a candidate is when they can have facts to back up their statements or more importantly--admit that they are wrong. Although Bachmann has several other points causing the odds not to be in her favor, her blatant disregard for allowing false statements to surface about something as serious as national security is appalling.
ReplyDelete