Conversation with a liberal part 2
I've been having an email conversation with a friend. My first post of our conversation is here (or just scroll 2 posts down). Here's what I received from him today (finally) and my response:
1. "Agreed—military service is not an absolute qualifier for president. But what they are doing is just mud-slinging. His service has nothing to do with his character or his bid for the presidency."
If his service has nothing to do with his character, why did Kerry make it the centerpiece of most of his campaign? Why does Kerry keep having to brag his 4 months in Vietnam when he had 20 years in the senate? The truth is, there are legitimate concerns about Kerry's actual war record (meaning his medals) and his testimony before the senate in the 70s is absolutely has something to do with his character and his bid for the presidency. Either he lied in his testimony, smearing his fellow soldiers and undermining the war effort (and giving the worst methods possible to POWs' torturers), OR all of it is true and he is a war criminal. [ I also should have mentioned the mudslinging about Bush's record--alas, I am not perfect. :)]
2. I never said (nor has the administration ever said) that Iraq was connected to 9/11. The connection is between al Qaeda and Iraq, which is definitely established. Now about the WMDs. First of all, any argument you make about how we should not have gone to war because there weren't any weapons is bogus, because hindsight is 20/20. Everybody "knew" Saddam had the weapons, even the UN:
"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax — enough doses to kill several million people. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it. "
"The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin — enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it. "
With the intelligence he had, the president decided we needed to go to war. John Kerry had the same intelligence (and the rest of Congress) and even he voted for the war.
President Bush did in fact give more reasons for invading Iraq than WMDs--in his speech and afterwards. Here are a few quotes from his 2003 State of the Union speech:
"And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
"[Saddam left] thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained — by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape."
I have a documented list of horrendous acts of atrocity Saddam committed if you are interested.
How in the WORLD could we have "handled Saddam like we did Milosevic"? Hmm....let's just send in the UN forces and I'm sure Saddam will just hop right into the armoured vehicle with a grin and a wink. A) the situation with Milosevic was different than Saddam: a country the size of California (Iraq) vs. a small region in eastern Europe; the crimes of Saddam far outweighed Milosevic's (in time period and volume). Yet is still took military action to retrieve Milosevic; it's not like he just surrendered peaceably. Also, Saddam will go on trial; it's not like we just barged in a slit his throat in barbaric glee.
3. I agree, there were atrocities committed. Yet over 200 (at least) veterans vehemently deny the charge that they personally committed them on a daily basis. And don't say, "Well then why did they wait 20 years until an election to come out and say this about Kerry?" when in fact their leader John O'Neil has been debating and campaigning against Kerry since the 70s. They have earned their right to be heard. Just look at the ridiculous attempts of the Kerry camp to suppress the Swift Boat Vets: they intimidated TV stations with threats of lawsuits for running ads; they tried to smear the characters of the vets; they actually tried to get Regnery publishing to pull the book. And the liberals are the ones crying for free speech? Notice how George Bush didn't campaign to get Michael Moore's propaganda pulled from theaters, or the book that detailed how to assasinate Bush. So much for liberals debating the issues.
4. "We should stabilize Iraq, and then pull out." Agreed. But John Kerry will do that the wrong way. He would put a time limit on our presence there. That's exactly what the terrorists want--a specified period of time to lie low and as soon as we leave, start firing again. We must stay until we win, not until John Kerry's watch buzzes. "...like every other country we've conquered"? Give me a break. This view of Imperialist America is ridiculous and typical of liberals. We do not conquer countries. You want to see imperialist countries? Check out half of Europe within the last 3 or 4 centuries! America is the most free, most benevolent, most giving, most supportive, has the most moral authority, and is altogether the best country in the world. And this is not because we the people are any better than the rest of the world--we're not; but we are the freest. And we want to spread that freedom. That is why we liberate people.
5. The response to this statement is for another day and time. Besides, I don't want to jam your mailbox limit. :)
- Agreed—military service is not an absolute qualifier for president. But what they are doing is just mud-slinging. His service has nothing to do with his character or his bid for the presidency.
- There were no ties between Iraq and Sept. 11 bombings. Cheney admitted that during the VP debate. WMD’s were the cause for war because that’s what Bush said in his speech to the nation and his speech to Congress. The evidence for WMD’s was also what Bush and Powell presented to the UN Security Council. We could have handled Saddam like we did Milosievich in Yugoslavia. The UN went in, captured him and he is now on trial in the International Court. War can be avoided.\
- What would be his motivation for lying about Vietnam? It has been proven there were horrible American atrocities to the Vietnamese people by American troops. And eventually, we shamefully did pull out because the government realized it was all a mistake. He told things like they were, and people hated him for doing it.
- We should stabilize Iraq, and then pull out. We can’t leave military bases and forces there like we have in every other country we have conquered. Bush has absolutely no plan for removing American troops in Iraq anywhere in the future.
- Democrats have the best plans when it comes to domestic policies. ;)
1. "Agreed—military service is not an absolute qualifier for president. But what they are doing is just mud-slinging. His service has nothing to do with his character or his bid for the presidency."
If his service has nothing to do with his character, why did Kerry make it the centerpiece of most of his campaign? Why does Kerry keep having to brag his 4 months in Vietnam when he had 20 years in the senate? The truth is, there are legitimate concerns about Kerry's actual war record (meaning his medals) and his testimony before the senate in the 70s is absolutely has something to do with his character and his bid for the presidency. Either he lied in his testimony, smearing his fellow soldiers and undermining the war effort (and giving the worst methods possible to POWs' torturers), OR all of it is true and he is a war criminal. [ I also should have mentioned the mudslinging about Bush's record--alas, I am not perfect. :)]
2. I never said (nor has the administration ever said) that Iraq was connected to 9/11. The connection is between al Qaeda and Iraq, which is definitely established. Now about the WMDs. First of all, any argument you make about how we should not have gone to war because there weren't any weapons is bogus, because hindsight is 20/20. Everybody "knew" Saddam had the weapons, even the UN:
"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax — enough doses to kill several million people. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it. "
"The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin — enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it. "
With the intelligence he had, the president decided we needed to go to war. John Kerry had the same intelligence (and the rest of Congress) and even he voted for the war.
President Bush did in fact give more reasons for invading Iraq than WMDs--in his speech and afterwards. Here are a few quotes from his 2003 State of the Union speech:
"And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
"[Saddam left] thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained — by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape."
I have a documented list of horrendous acts of atrocity Saddam committed if you are interested.
How in the WORLD could we have "handled Saddam like we did Milosevic"? Hmm....let's just send in the UN forces and I'm sure Saddam will just hop right into the armoured vehicle with a grin and a wink. A) the situation with Milosevic was different than Saddam: a country the size of California (Iraq) vs. a small region in eastern Europe; the crimes of Saddam far outweighed Milosevic's (in time period and volume). Yet is still took military action to retrieve Milosevic; it's not like he just surrendered peaceably. Also, Saddam will go on trial; it's not like we just barged in a slit his throat in barbaric glee.
3. I agree, there were atrocities committed. Yet over 200 (at least) veterans vehemently deny the charge that they personally committed them on a daily basis. And don't say, "Well then why did they wait 20 years until an election to come out and say this about Kerry?" when in fact their leader John O'Neil has been debating and campaigning against Kerry since the 70s. They have earned their right to be heard. Just look at the ridiculous attempts of the Kerry camp to suppress the Swift Boat Vets: they intimidated TV stations with threats of lawsuits for running ads; they tried to smear the characters of the vets; they actually tried to get Regnery publishing to pull the book. And the liberals are the ones crying for free speech? Notice how George Bush didn't campaign to get Michael Moore's propaganda pulled from theaters, or the book that detailed how to assasinate Bush. So much for liberals debating the issues.
4. "We should stabilize Iraq, and then pull out." Agreed. But John Kerry will do that the wrong way. He would put a time limit on our presence there. That's exactly what the terrorists want--a specified period of time to lie low and as soon as we leave, start firing again. We must stay until we win, not until John Kerry's watch buzzes. "...like every other country we've conquered"? Give me a break. This view of Imperialist America is ridiculous and typical of liberals. We do not conquer countries. You want to see imperialist countries? Check out half of Europe within the last 3 or 4 centuries! America is the most free, most benevolent, most giving, most supportive, has the most moral authority, and is altogether the best country in the world. And this is not because we the people are any better than the rest of the world--we're not; but we are the freest. And we want to spread that freedom. That is why we liberate people.
5. The response to this statement is for another day and time. Besides, I don't want to jam your mailbox limit. :)
posted by Seth at 5:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home