A response to an e-mail from a resolute friend...

I was sent some right wing trash today from an old friend. The sad thing is, he's in Iraq right now. He was an ardent Bush supporter when we last met, and it seems that his experience in Iraq has only re-inforced his beliefs.

Name is removed to protect my friend's identity...

_______________________________________


*****,

You know I love ya like a brother. As such, I have to tell you that I find it sad that you buy into Bush's policy so wholeheartedly. I hate the war, not the warrior. You're part of our armed forces, and I have undying respect for your service.

Saying that, I would like to address some of these talking points.

Something to think about ... Let's put things into perspective before we decide which group should run our country:

>>There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.<<


The recent repeal of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and the underfunding of the Cops program (which put 100,000 more cops on our streets) instituted under Clinton is only insuring that the inner city killings will continue with another four years of Bush.

>>FDR led us into World War II in Europe. Germany never attacked us. Japan did.<<

Ah yes, it was Japan's attack that started our involvement in WWII, but the alliance between Germany, Italy, and Japan was well established before we entered WWII. Germany did declare war on the US. It wasn't like we attacked a country that didn't have anything to do with the axis powers, like...say...Mexico. Germany was attacking our allies, remember? We didn't ignore Japan either. Remember Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Not that I fault a person for their ancestry, but wasn't it Prescott Bush (George W. Bush's Grandfather) that provided the supplies that built the Nazi Blitzkrieg machine?

>>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.<<

I'm not going to argue with your numbers, they are recorded in history. I will say that the measure of the justification for a war is not measured in the number of lives lost in it. It is measured in the justified reasons for why we entered into that war.

World War II was a war of survival, not a war of choice. Huge difference. How many reasons has this administration given for going to war with Iraq. First, we KNEW they had WMDs...no WMDs. Then we KNEW they had plans for WMDs...no plans. Then we knew Saddam had the desire for WMDs. Look, I have the desire to have a trillion dollars. Doesn't mean that it's gonna happen, especially at the rate I'm getting paid.

Then there's the plan to bring "American Style Democracy" to Iraq. Have you heard what's happening at Bush rallies here in the US, Issac? People have to sign loyalty oaths to get in. This loyalty oath states that by signing it, the Bush campaign can use your name as a supporter for President Bush. Now, say that I'm an undecided voter and I want to hear what the President and Sen. Kerry have to say before I make my decision. Do you think it's fair that I have to sign a loyalty oath? Is this the freedom we want to bring to these people? I think not. Meanwhile, all across the country, voters that registered this year as Democrats have have found out that their registration forms are missing. Is this American Freedom?

Sen. Kerry's rallies don't have loyalty oaths. Bush supporters are welcome to come to his rallies. They heckle him while he talks, and instead of ignoring them, (check this out) he addresses their concerns! I don't know about you, but I want a president that listens to We The People.

>>Truman finished that war with a bang and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.<<

Now, we are taking troops from the DMZ in Korea to go to Iraq. Bush does this with the knowledge that Kim Jong Crazy has 6 to 8 Nuclear Weapons! Hey, wasn't that what we were going into Iraq for? Right, that's what I remember.

>>John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.<<

JFK was also in the Oval Office during the Cuban Missle Crisis. This was the pivotal moment at which we understood that a armed nuclear conflict would lead to a vacant radioactive cinder once known as Earth.

JFK also started the Apollo Project. The plan that sent our astronauts to the moon. This kind of plan would have come in real handy on 9/12/01 except this time, our goal would be energy independence so we wouldn't have to "liberate" our energy supply.

>>Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. Vietnam never attacked us. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.<<

Ah yes, conservatives seem to be living 35 years in the past. Yes, this goes back to the whole Gulf of Tonkin debacle. Nixon ran on the pledge that he would pull our troops out. Interesting that they continued to stay there during the course of his administration. Then again, that's Tricky Dick for ya.

>>Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us.<<

There have been no combat casualties in Bosnia. The regretful lesson learned from WWII was that we had the opportunity to save many jews from the holocaust, but would not get involved thanks to an isolationist agenda. (See above why we did attack Germany AS WELL AS JAPAN!)

>>He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.<<

A dubious claim, but let's go ahead and consider that it is true for the moment. There were Al Queda training camps in Afghanistan. What did we do? That's right, we blew them up...well most of 'em. There are Al Queda training camps in Sudan. There is genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. Where are we again? Iraq (i.e. Not Sudan where there are Al Queda training camps)? I thought this was a war on terrorism. A war against Al Queda and other state and non-state sponsored terrorists.

As bad as Saddam Hussain was (yes he gassed and shot his own people, but used weapons provided to him by the US during the Iran-Iraq war during the Reagan era, but I digress), he was a secular leader. What difference does this make, you ask? Well, you see, Osama Bin Laden (still uncaptured, most likely dead, but who's countin', right?) is a fundementalist leader. Secular and fundementalist mix like oil and water. While they may have met, the 9/11 report showed that there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussain and Al Queda. No connection between Iraq and Sept. 11.

>>Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.<<

This would make you think that he would be a top priority of the President Bush's, but on 3/13/02 he said "I don't think about him that much." Before that, the Presidential Daily Brief from August 6, 2001 which was titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US" which described how Bin Laden's Al Queda group was getting ready to fly planes into major landmarks in the US. In her testamony to the 9/11 comission, Condi Rice called this PDB, "a historic document". Excuse me, but just because a verb has an -ed ending doesn't necessarily make it past tense. Now if it had read, "Bin Laden used to be determined to strike in the US, but not anymore" then I'd be more inclined to agree with Ms. Rice.

If Osama has attacked us several times, it seems like we should be concentrating our forces on him.

>>In the two years since terrorists attacked US, President Bush has liberated two countries.<<

Another dubious claim. The prime opponent of Harmed Karzi (the former Unocal executive), had the support of the mujahadeen. Women are allowed to vote, but only with the permission of their husbands and their husbands' families. Guess that 19 year-old girl was one of the lucky ones. President Bush has claimed that over 10 million people in Afghanistan had registered to vote in their recent election, but there were only 9.8 million eligible voters. The afghans used a ink to mark the thumbs of people that had already voted to insure that people didn't vote twice. However, the afghans quickly realized how easily this ink wore off and many voted again.
Meanwhile, almost three quarters of the world's illegal opium production comes from Afghanistan. This is a huge leap from pre-Sept. 11th when the Bush-Led US Government gave the Taliban regime $40 million dollars to repress this production.

In Iraq, Interim Prime Minister Allawi (sp?) has a crooked bombing history of his own. This history includes bombing a movie theatre. 50 children died in that attack.

The man that would have been Prime Minister if not for crossing his masters in the White House, Chalabi (sp?) had been convicted in Jordan of money laundering. If he crossed over into Jordan, he'd be in jail.

>>crushed the Taliban<<

The Taliban were one of the parties represented in the Afghan election.
>>crippled al-Qaida<<

Yes, but there's a long way to go on that.

>>put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot<<

Ok, I'll give you Lybia, but inspectors have been in Iran and N. Korea for much longer than the Bush Administration.

>>and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.<<

The self-same monster who used US manufactured weapons. After the first Gulf War, Bush 41 told the Sunni that if they would rise up against Saddam, then our millitary would support them. They took up arms, and Bush 41 told our men to stand down as hundreds of Sunni were gunned down by Iraqi helicopters. We're not innocent on this one by a long shot.

>>The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but the fact is that it took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation. <<

Bush was the one that said that the Mission was Accomplished, not the Democrats. Secretary of State Colin Powell warned President Bush that if we invaded Iraq we would have to win the peace. Powell wrote a war doctorine toward the end of the Vietnam conflict that stated that the way to invade a country is to go in with OVERWHELMING force. General Eric Shinseki said that we would need 500,000 troops to invade Iraq. The last numbers I've seen have a grand total of somewhere around 150,000 troops. 500,000 > 150,000, right?

Even though major combat opperations have been declared completed, more soldiers have died in Iraq after this dubious claim than before? Is this an example of what President Bush calls a "catestrophic success"?

>>We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find her Rose Law Firm billing records.<<

Hans Blix went to Iraq under the UN mandate, and wasn't able to find anything before he was pulled out. Strike 1

But, hey, you can't trust those UN Blue-Helmets, right? So the US sent their own man, David Kay, to Iraq to look for the weapons. Kay came back in Janurary, 2004 to report that there were no weapons. Strike 2

Last Thursday, Charles Duelfer of the CIA released a report that stated that not only did Saddam not have any WMDs but their ability to make any had been severely crippled since 1991! Strike 3!

>>It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick, drowning Mary Jo.<<

Probably so, and they probably took less time to complete their mission than it took George H.W. Bush to pull strings to get George W. Bush into the Texas Air National Guard.

>>It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!<<

And it took less time to take over Iraq than it took for hundreds of black voters in Florida to be disenfranchised in 2000. They're gearing up to do the same thing in this election as well.

>>Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.<<

The safe zone (the area that's safe for fish) on the Great Lakes has shrunk for the first time since the institution of the EPA in 1972.

The "No Child Left Behind" education act has been underfunded by millions of dollars.

Five Million people have lost their health insurance under President Bush's watch.

This is the first President to lose jobs since Herbert Hoover. Hoover's rallying call was "Prosperity is right around the corner." Sound familiar?

The national debt ceiling (the maximum amount of debt we allow our government under the law) was exceeded the 3rd time during this administration. To try to pay this down, the government is borrowing from the government employee pension fund. Legislation will have to be written to revise this number for further no-bid contracts for Halliburton, Bectel, and the slew of other war profiteers.

Funding for VA Hospitals has been cut under the Bush Administration.

This is the first time in the written history of mankind that there have been tax cuts in a time of war. I'm not just talking about American history; I'm talking about since Ancient Egyptian history.

>>If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.<<

Thank you Issac, but for the health of our country, I will never be able to vote for George W. Bush and have a clear conscience.

I pray for your safe return,

Your Damn Leftist Hippie That Gives A Good Goddamn About You Guys And Gals.