A View from the Muslim world.

Apparently those supporters of Congressman Murtha's position on Iraq can find nothing to say other than rant and rail against the Bush administration. Thoughtful discourse seems not to be their forte. They might do well to consider the following from the Free Muslim Coalition. This may be a very different view than that of the terrorists, their supporters and their sympathizers.

FMC Blog

It is interesting to note the comments of blog readers, both those who agree and those who disagree. It is also easy to see those replies motivated by unreasoning hatred and those form concerned, thinking individuals. I leave it for the reader to decide which opinion has the upper hand. The same could have once applied to Neville Chamberlains, “Peace in our time” speech when world domination was in the offing.

Should the U.S. Leave Iraq?

When Rep. John Murtha said that the United States must leave Iraq immediately he ignited a national debate on whether the U.S. should leave Iraq. Normally, such a statement would not have been noticed, but because Congressman Murtha is a retired Marine colonel who earned a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts for his service in Vietnam Washington listened. In response to Congressman Murtha, the White House stated: "The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists."

Unfortunately, the debates that followed congressman Murtha's statement were often misguided and off-point. Most of the discussions that followed dealt with whether the U.S. should leave Iraq. However, whether the U.S. leaves Iraq is not an issue. Most American politicians, including President Bush want to leave Iraq. The real issue is when should the U.S. leave and under what conditions?

In calling on President Bush to withdraw American troops from Iraq, Congressman Murtha justified his statement by concluding that the Bush administration's management of the war effort is based on "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion," and said the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is "uniting the enemy against us."

So is Congressman Murtha's conclusions correct? Is the Iraq war effort a failure? We at the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism don't think so.

Clearly, the conditions in Iraq are not ideal. More than 2000 American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed; explosions occur on a daily basis and the country may be more divided today than it has ever been. Despite these facts, the war effort in Iraq is a huge success. Iraq has been transformed into an open democratic society and there is no going back.

Let's not forget that Iraqis for the first time in recent history elected their government, voted on a constitution and in the coming days will again elect a new government. Despite their many challenges, Iraqis today freely and publicly criticize their government and are free to change their government any time they feel their government is not doing a good job. This puts Iraqis in a unique position in the Middle East. They are holding their government accountable which suggests that Iraq will never again have another authoritarian government. Indeed, Iraq has been transformed and there is no going back.

However, the U.S. should eventually leave Iraq but not now. The United States cannot leave Iraq immediately nor can the United States set a timetable for withdrawal. If the United States sets a fixed timetable the insurgents could merely wait until the U.S. leaves and then redouble their efforts to overwhelm the government of Iraq and/or attempt to create a civil war. This cannot happen under any circumstances. No matter whether one supported or opposed the Iraq war the entire world and all Americans must now put the past behind them and do whatever it takes to make Iraq a successful, united and prosperous state.

We, the Free Muslims, have stated in the past that a democratic, secular and prosperous Iraq can positively transform the Middle East like no war or any amount of money can. This is why Iraq must succeed and all Americans must unit behind their government to make sure that Iraq succeeds.

Having said this, the United States should give serious consideration to moving U.S. forces outside of Iraq's cities and population centers as soon as possible. The U.S. military should be far enough that the average Iraqi feels he lives in an independent sovereign country but close enough that they can return in case of an emergency. There are many benefits to stationing American troops outside of Iraq's population centers. The most important reason is that the new Iraqi government will understand that American troops will not always be there to protect them and thus, they will have to do a better job of reconciling with all Iraqis, including Arab Sunnis. At the end of the day, the new Iraq must be the home of all Iraqis without even the appearance of being lead by a sectarian government. This is where the existing Iraqi government has failed.

For example, the first election was boycotted by Sunni Arabs and the overwhelming majority of the Sunni Arabs voted against the constitution. This is not a healthy situation. Iraqi Kurds and Shias must do a better job of compromising with Sunni Arabs if Iraq is to become a stable, democratic and prosperous nation. The degree of compromise and reconciliation necessary to stabilize Iraq may not occur if Shias and Kurds feel that the United States is there to protect them whether they compromise or not.

In conclusion, the United States must make it clear to all Iraqis that it is not an occupying power and that it will leave Iraq one day after it becomes stable. The U.S. government must plan for the eventual withdrawal from Iraq by removing American troops from Iraqi cities and stationing them in unpopulated areas as soon as possible.

The U.S. military must rely on the Iraqi military and other security forces to protect Iraq. This Iraqi military is now in a better position to take more responsibility. Since July, 2005, 22 new battalions and 5,500 Police Service personnel have been trained and equipped (as have some 2,000 Special Police commanders). Coalition senior officers report that Iraq now has approximately 130 battalions.

Moreover, the U.S. military must not rush to assist the Iraqi military and Iraqi security forces every time they face difficulty. The more difficulty Iraqi forces experience, the more likely it is for the existing leaders of Iraq to reach out and compromise with Iraq's dissenters who are mostly Sunni Arabs. All parties must understand that unless Sunni Arabs feel that they are equal partners in today's Iraq there will never be peace in Iraq nor will Iraq stabilize. Once Shias, Kurds and Sunni Arabs reconcile, the insurgency will die and the terrorists will find themselves in a lonely and hostile place.

Islam, Terrorism, Liberals and more

The following is a series of responses and comments prompted by the second post to this blog which can be read at the end of this one. I chose this method rather than just adding another comment as I have a lot more to say and would hope for readership. The first section is a series of comments and my responses. The last response is lengthy and detailed and is the reason for my posting the entire series.

John Burgess said...
Nice piece!

I'd only note that the term "Wahhabi" tends to get misused. The majority of Wahhabis are not terrorists, nor are they sympathetic to terrorists.

The term that seems to be gaining momentum--due largely to Anthony Cordesman at the CSIS--is "neo-salafist". This correctly encompasses the violent extremists while excluding the Wahhabis who are, actually, rather quietist in their outlook.
10:06 AM

HoJo added, “I shall research this information and make appropriate adjustments.”

Ian said...
America is already weak. America is already ineffective. The actions taken by our president and his subsequent approval rating show little confidence from the country in our leadership. This shows weakness. Bush shows weakness.

It is insulting for you to compare Iraq to WWII... completely and utterly insulting. In the Iraqi war, we are the aggressors. We made the invasion. Germany and Hitler were the invasive party in WWII. The anniversary of Pearl Harbor was 4 days ago... I don't think I need to remind you who was the aggressor there.

It is often interesting to see the injustices that are perpetrated for no reason, to see the people stand idly by and watch the deterioration of a nation and morality because they are too afraid to be shut up by propagandists and overbearing, dangerous nationalists.

Terrorism is the product of stubbornness, elitism and pigheaded foreign policy. The path to the heart of our "enemies" lies not in bombing their cities. Surely you can see this.
7:03 PM

HoJo said...
Ian:

Pardon me, but your indoctrination into leftist philosophy is showing. In many respects you are quite accurate when you say America is weak. The consummate destruction of morality in our nation that has been promoted by the left for so many years has substantially weakened us. Your President, “Slick Willy” clearly demonstrated that with his direct lies and redefinition of sex. Your great and honorable leaders like Teddy Kennedy and Robert Byrd also demonstrate that almost on a daily basis.

I will stand on my statements about WWII. I think it insulting to say we were the aggressors in Iraq. If that be true then surely we were also the aggressors in Germany and Japan. There is no question, Saddam Hussein was precisely the same kind of despotic dictator as Hitler. The similarity of his treatment of the Kurds to Hitler’s treatment of the Jews is inescapable. The only difference was that we stopped Saddam Hussein before he became powerful enough to be a major world threat. How much of a threat would he be now if he accomplished what he clearly stated was his intent and taken over the entire Arabian peninsula? Think about it.

Some time back I watched a Peter Jennings special on our dropping of the atom bomb. The way it was presented one would have thought that we were the evil aggressors against the poor Japanese. This special was clearly meant to rewrite history and paint America as evil. The main stream and very liberal media still seem to try their best to paint our nation as an evil aggressor virtually everywhere. Surely you get all your news from the liberal triplets. I doubt you ever listen to or read any information that differs from your own views. My sister, whom I love dearly, once wrote me, “You have such a fine mind, I cannot fathom why you waste your attention on such persons as Rush Limbaugh and George Bush and the Religious Right.” That was after she wrote that I was the only person she knew who voted for George Bush. All that demonstrated to me was that she hadn’t a clue who I really was or what I thought. Simply because I was not in complete accord with her liberal views I was lumped in with all those “stupid, ultra conservative, fundamentalist Christians from fly-over country.” That is as much prejudice as, “all blacks are . . .” Should you want to learn something of this kind of political prejudice, read Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer.” I see you like many young people as caught up in a political belief system that controls your thoughts, shutting out absolutely everything that does not agree with the “holy” liberal agenda.

I like your paragraph about injustices and agree almost completely. I would merely replace your word “nationalists” with “liberal one-worlders.” Europe stood by and did precisely what you described as Hitler’s power grew. I would suppose that you would have us stand by now and let tyrants and world conquerors like Saddam Hussein grow in power in the same way.

Your words on terrorism: I see you following the mantras of the left in blaming America for terrorism and describing our actions as, “bombing their cities.” Would you then also blame America for causing the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? Many people did, you know. The Japanese went to war with us because we shut off vital materials we had previously been providing. I doubt you know that. I realize it would go against your belief, but try substituting the words, “liberating their cities” for “bombing their cities” and you get an entirely different slant.

You might be surprised to know that I disagree strongly with many of the Bush administration policies. Read the comments on my blog about the environment as the blog itself may not make that clear. I like to think I have a mind open to all kinds of information from all kinds of sources. I have an idea that you and I would have more agreements than disagreements. Our big differences would come in the methods we would choose to achieve those goals.

I certainly would not be condescending in my comments because I know you are a very bright, thoughtful, idealistic young man. I would only suggest that you consider the possibility that your deeply ingrained prejudices may be guiding your emotions and anger. There really is a possibility you could be at least partly wrong, you know. I will readily admit to being wrong a few times myself. Peter Abelard said, “By doubting we are led to inquire. By inquiring we perceive the truth.” As I suggested, read Eric Hoffer if you can find his work. His views are very down-to-earth and quite enlightening. Incidently, in his time he was considered to be quite liberal.

Cordially, Uncle Mike
6:10 AM

Fish said...
Uncle Mike,
It's pretty difficult to respond to most of the things that you say and I think it's pretty evident that there is a great deal of futility in my even trying to do so. But you made some pretty large mistakes in your response to me.

First of all, I have been indoctrinated into nothing. I am a thinker who sees alternate points of view, has heard numerous opinions and has chosen what he believes to be the right one. I don't associate with a political party or an ideological category. I have my own conceptions of right and wrong, my own analysis of morality. I am a philosophy major at Reed College who is deeply intrigued by ethics and morals. These issues cannot be invaluated in a philosophical manner by one who is "indoctrinated".

Obviously, your sense of morality and mine are vastly different. While we may both share concepts of right and wrong that are similar, I can't believe anyone would fault a president for sexual indiscretions more than a president who has led a war that has killed innocent people both in America and in the Middle East.

Your President, "Slick Willy" clearly demonstrated that with his direct lies and redefinition of sex. Your great and honorable leaders like Teddy Kennedy and Robert Byrd also demonstrate that almost on a daily basis.

Here's where you make a huge error that shows your rush to judgement and, unfortunately, an inability for critical evaluation. Bill Clinton is not "my president" exclusively by any means. He is not the exclusive president of the liberals, the democrats, the radical leftists or the sexual transgressors. For 8 years, he was the President of the United States and all its citizens. I never voted for him (I was 11 when he was elected for the second time), but he was my president. As much as I hate to say it, George Bush is my president in the same respect. I didn't vote for him, but I live in this country and he is my president. And that is precisely the problem. He doesn't represent my sense of right and wrong and certainly doesn't represent the concerns of people who hold similar opinions to me. This is why he is a bad president at the very root of all things.

Mostly, I am taken aback that you say "Teddy Kennedy and Robert Byrd are" my leaders. These two men are not my leaders. I am a leader. I believe what I believe. I have my sense of right and wrong, my conceptions of how the country should be run, and my ideas for making the world better. I certainly don't believe that Teddy Kennedy and Robert Byrd are leading me in any direction. I'm leading myself to my own conclusions, critically evaluating everything that I hear from every source--Democrat or Republican.

I have no great admiration for the Democratic party of late. It's not liberal enough. It doesn't truly advocate what is right and what is wrong. They are spineless individuals who are more concerned about earning the vote than doing the right thing. I represent myself; I don't buy in to what my "leaders" say just because they say it.

And you should do the same with regards to Bush. You voted for him. He's your leader. He's mine too. But part of living in a democracy means questioning the wrongdoings of our leaders when they take the wrong step with regard to policy, even if it isn't socialy acceptable to do so.

I don't know that I want to get into WWII and Iraq except to say this: Hitler systematically killed Six Million Jews. It became a science. A low-cost effort to eliminate a people from the world. To compare Hitler to Saddam Hussein demonstrates your inability to look beyond Bush's rhetoric.

Hitler had the tools, the power and he implemented them. A "what if" argument is unsound and fallacious. What if Saddam Hussein actually had nuclear weapons? Then maybe Bush would have had cause to go to war.

But alas, he didn't. And so... he didn't.

It is an unjust war. Nearly all wars are. I haven't been fed this by the "leftist" media (the people at Fox News sure are a bunch of tree-huggin' hippies!), but have realized it on my own in my nearly 21 years of life.
Ian
5:41 PM

Ian:
You said, It's pretty difficult to respond to most of the things that you say and I think it's pretty evident that there is a great deal of futility in my even trying to do so. But you made some pretty large mistakes in your response to me.

I could say the same to you, but won’t. My mistakes, as you call them, seem to me to be differences of opinion. Of course, I have observed that any disagreement with the absolutely correct positions with those on the liberal left (and Christian fundamentalists of the right) are considered mistakes or errors by those self-same individuals. I still contend that your “objective” education has helped instill in you certain beliefs about what is right and what is wrong. You are, even as I am, a product of genetics plus all the input from others present and involved in your upbringing, education and personal discovery. These influences determine who and what you are, your moral standards, your belief systems, even your likes and dislikes. Some of these inputs you will accept, some you will rebel against, some you will ignore. No one is exempt from these influences. It is how we become who we are. When we describe this about ourselves we call it independent personal choice. In others we call it indoctrination or prejudice.

Virtually everything you have learned thus far in your life you learned from another human in one way or another. There is extremely little chance that personal, unaided discovery has contributed much to who you are. I’m sure your parents did all possible to teach you to think for yourself–to be your own person–to be a leader and not a follower– to make up your own mind. I know I did that for all five of mine as best I could. Since you valued your parents and their thoughts and beliefs it is quite natural for these to have had a major effect on you. Even so, I will also wager there were times when you disagreed with them–even argued your case forcibly. I know my gang were never afraid to oppose me when they thought differently. This is the natural course of human events.

Your grandmother and I were brought up in virtually the same home environment yet we view many things quite differently. Differences became much stronger after college where she and I took paths of significant differences. She studied drama and the humanities; (the touchy-feely world of emotion, hopes and human behavior) I studied science and engineering. (the pragmatic world of facts, mathematics and realistic solutions) As a result of our nature, our home experience and our formal education we came to view things from very different vantage points. I seriously doubt you (or she) ever seek out and listen to or consider seriously opinions, thoughts, principals or “morals” that are not in concert with your own regardless of where you actually stand. You “know” those people are wrong, misguided, stupid or ignorant simply because they don’t agree with you.

Yes, technically, Bill Clinton was indeed “my” president. Common treatment of language includes a rather broad definition of this term and I claim the right to use it in a general term. He was most certainly not my choice for President in the same way George Bush is certainly not your choice. When technicality serves to prove a point it is used. When generality serves, that is used. Come on Ian, you knew precisely what I meant, or do I need spell it out for you?

You wrote, George Bush is my president in the same respect. I didn't vote for him, but I live in this country and he is my president. And that is precisely the problem. He doesn't represent my sense of right and wrong and certainly doesn't represent the concerns of people who hold similar opinions to me. This is why he is a bad president at the very root of all things.

I am to take it from this that you believe Bush is a bad President simply because you and those “who hold similar opinions to me.” believe so and disagree with him and his policies? In other words, anyone who disagrees with you is bad? Is that not a very arrogant statement? I hear similar statements from so many liberals–they are just right and anyone who disagrees with them is stupid, ignorant, evil, mislead, etc... Maybe they (and you) are just incredulous that anyone would question the “holy” opinions or agenda of the liberal. I haven’t a clue!

About your references to this “illegal” war and how incorrect it is to compare Hitler and Hussein. That is merely an opinion, not a fact. Had the free world (or any part of it) stopped Hitler in the mid 30s when “Peace in our time” was the rule of those who refused to act against an obviously growing menace, the organized murder of millions by the NAZIs would never have come to fact. Possibly even the several times as many millions murdered systematically by the Bolsheviks in Russia could have been prevented. Of course there is no way to predict where Saddam Hussein would have gone had he not been stopped. If you deny that possibility then technically, you are once more correct. I certainly do not agree.

Hitler in nineteen-forty-one was a vastly different threat than Hussein in 2001. You are once more correct, technically. However, Hitler in 1933 was even less of a menace than Hussein before the first Gulf War. The difference is that no one stopped Hitler. Would you have considered a war to prevent Hitler from building his juggernaut of death another illegal or immoral war? Would you have called illegal, a war to stop or prevent the murders of millions just because you are opposed to war? And on what would you base your opinion?

Once more, the conclusion to follow is a projection, and not an actual fact, but from existing records, twice as many Iraqis were killed by Saddam Hussein’s government each year before the “liberation” (to you, occupation) of Iraq by coalition forces than have died in any of the years since. That means the “illegal” and “inhumane” war has saved as many as 35,000 net lives in Iraq. Of course, Hussein could have lowered his rate of killing in response to appeals from American peaceniks. What do you think?

Another report by a British research group for the year 2005 reported 900 coalition deaths from all causes in 2005. They also reported 4200 Iraqi deaths during the same period. 2100 were terrorists killed by coalition action.1700 were civilians killed by the actions of terrorists. 400 were non-combatants killed by coalition forces during actions against terrorists. It is interesting to note that during all of 2005, about twice as many young men were killed by gun violence (700) in Chicago as in Bagdad, (348) a city of twice the population of Chicago. Statistics in the rest of Iraq average out to about the same, including terrorists killed in military action. Extended to the rest of the US at half the rate of Chicago to be safe, internal, home grown terrorism right here in the US is at least twice as deadly as in Iraq. We have a far bigger body count here at home, even on a percentage basis, than we do in Iraq and other than the most sensational murders or accidental shootings, it is rarely even mentioned in the media.

In one of your comments you said, “Terrorism is the product of stubbornness, elitism and pigheaded foreign policy. The path to the heart of our ‘enemies’ lies not in bombing their cities. Surely you can see this.” I suppose you mean that American imperialism was responsible for all thirteen hundred years of Islamic terrorism including the anti-Hindu terrorism in India, the anti Buddhist terrorism in most of Asia, the conquering of Christian Constantinople by Sulemon the Magnificent, the sacking of the library in Alexandria and all the other wars and terrorism visited on people by Islamic armies and terrorists. Apparently you would agree with Samiul Haq described in the following quote from an article about Islam.

“In the 1980s the Soviet Union epitomized, for fundamentalist-minded Muslims, the abode of war. Today it is the United States that symbolizes the dar-al-harb. How this came to pass, how America, which supported -- created, some would say -- the jihad movement against the Soviets, came to become the No. 1 enemy of hard-core Islamists is one of the more vexing questions facing American policy-makers and the leaders of a dozen Muslim countries today. One school of thought, Samiul Haq's school, says it's the Americans' fault: American imperialism and the export of American social and sexual mores are to blame." (This could indeed be considered an indictment of the Hollywood liberal left’s effect on sexual mores?)

"The other school of thought holds that Islam, by its very nature, is in permanent competition with other civilizations. This is the theory expounded by the Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington, who coined the term “Islam's bloody borders” -- a reference to the fact that wherever Islam rubs up against other civilizations -- Jewish, Christian, Hindu -- wars seem to break out. Men like Haq deride this view, and yet, in their black-and-white world, Islam stands alone against the world's infidels: Christians (or “Crusaders,” in the fundamentalist parlance) to be sure, but Jews and Hindus especially. In Haq's view, the West is implacably hostile to the message of Islam, and so the need to prepare for jihad is never-ending.”

Listen to the rhetoric of these fundamentalist Muslims. They are totally intolerant of any views other than their own very narrow, fundamentalist doctrine. Listen to the voices of those who support their goals. They are bringing their seventh century mentality and literal hate message of the Koran into the present as they have since Mohammed first brought the Koran to them. Any truce offering they make is specifically made to enable them to build up their forces, weapons and fighters for the next attack. To not respect their expressed and written words is suicidal folly. They not only want the extermination of the Jews, but the extermination of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and all other religions including even some Muslims who don’t agree with them. They base this on the literal wording of the Koran. Their goal? Subjugation of all the peoples of the world by a Taliban-like world government and murder of all who don’t accept and convert to their satanic belief system. Those are their own pronouncements, not my opinion.

Another absolutely necessary action: That action is to immediately develop useable, non-petroleum fuels to cut off the economic destruction of the west. The Islamic world and all petroleum financed dictators would soon be destitute and without resources were we to implement such an action. This would be the cheapest and safest way to destroy Islam–bankrupt them. Combine their massive population growth, removal of oil revenue would bring them to their knees economically and militarily. I have outlined a workable plan to solve not only our dependence on foreign oil, but to take giant steps to reversing CO2 emissions and the purported concomitant global warming. This a plan. Something I see almost noone of from the ranks of liberals. I saw lots of condemnation in your words, but where is your plan? I realize it is much easier to destroy than to build. Are liberals just not up to the hard work of building, but must concentrate on hate and destruction?

I realize the chances of our taking these steps is very remote. The left would rather commit suicide and probably will and could even take all of us with them when they do. Didn’t some one say, “All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.” Of course, Islamic terrorists, Fidel Castro, Caesar Chavez and most American Liberals view conservatives and Republicans as the evil Satan. Come the Islamic take over, they will be the first to be beheaded, but liberals, you will be next! As models, look at the French revolution and the Bolshevik revolution. Remember, there was no such blood bath in our own revolution because those involved had little taste for blood, but a real thirst for freedom.

The Moslem world is mostly either under the totalitarian fist of oppressive dictators or the chaos of anarchy. Their chosen enemies are all free men everywhere. Their supporters are those who believe their rein of absolute power will be fulfilled if they support and help these angry men. Financed by money from the west’s thirst for petroleum products, Islam is posing an increasing menace to the US and free men everywhere. By using the power of class, ethnic, cultural, racial and religious hatred, to incite violence and terrorism against the United States, these truly evil men are uniting the poor and ignorant of the world as pawns in their thirst for dictatorial power. Their word is hatred, their mantra is envy, their message is death and destruction, and their appeal is to those who have little or nothing to lose. This is almost precisely the carefully hidden agenda of the American liberal left. Hunger for power makes for strange bedfellows.

Heros: We all have heros of one sort or another. These are usually people we look up to and respect for a variety of reasons. Sometimes we seek to emulate them. I have a number of people I consider my heros. My parents, my sisters, (yes, your grandmother is one of my admired heros) Even my children and grandchildren I consider heros of a sort. I know I can always learn from them. Most of my other heros are those whose words and actions I respect and admire even though I don’t always agree with them. All are strangers in a personal sense as I have never met any of them. In no particular order they include: Talbot Munday, Helen Keller, Mother Theresa, Albert Einstein, Andrei Sakharov, Mohandas Gandhi, Edwin Hubble, and two with web sites, Stephen Jay Gould - http://www.stephenjaygould.org and Eric Hoffer - http://www.erichoffer.net. I know there are others but none come to mind immediately. Incidently, should you google Talbot Munday you will see a reference to one of my blog sites about the fourth listing down. You might want to take a look at http://2therealworld.blogspot.com, a lecture I have given to several groups of young people that was quite well received.

You’ll notice there are no politicians included among my heros. I have little respect for most politicians with their duplicitous words and devious motives. They may spout meaningless pap to the public, posture mightily, make ridiculous laws, send our men to die in foreign lands, spend our money lavishly and often foolishly, feather their nests from the public treasury and a thousand other significant actions serving self rather than the nation, and promise many things while doing just the opposite, yet we are stupid enough to continue electing them time and again. I often wonder, how many public serving statesmen our nation has actually held in office the last two hundred and twenty some years. I’ll wager there weren’t many. I’ll also wager there are more true and honorable public servants reporting to the board rooms of America than walking the halls of Congress and other public buildings in Washington.

So Ian, do you have any heros? If so, who are they? Who would you describe as a statesman serving the public rather than self?

Leadership: So, where is your leadership into the brave new world of liberal freedom and peace? According to your words, you are a leader. A leader of one? Who are your followers? Who will implement the grand plans you have for changing this evil world? And, by the way, I don’t recall reading about any plans. Do you have any? I see lots of condemnation–lots of anger–lots of “anti” words coming from you. How about the positive–the constructive–the building–the solutions? You despise Bush, but offer no creative thought about solving the problems facing our nation. It’s quite easy to condemn the actions of other, but quite a different thing to propose practical, productive solutions to the problems with which they are dealing.

A favorite quote of mine: “Choose, and take the consequences. Choose to command, and learn the pain of the barbed treachery of envy. Choose to obey, and learn how soon obedience begets contempt. Choose the philosopher’s life, and learn the famished waste of thought that, like a barren woman, lusts unpregnant. Choose . . . or become the victim of others’ choosing.” by Talbot Munday

To me, leadership is not walking alone into the future, but leading individuals into productive effort for a worthwhile constructive cause. Leadership is bringing people together and helping them to achieve as a group, far more than the total the group could achieve with individuals going it alone–synergy if you will. Leadership demands a practical plan aimed at a goal, a real goal. To that end I have written and continue to add to a book titled, “Solutions.” It is a collection of workable plans to solve some of our most vexing problems–national and world-wide. To date I have addressed revision of our ridiculous tax structure, welfare, health care, global warming, atmospheric pollution, our dependence on foreign petroleum, the drug problem–and several others. I have also listed numerous other problems I plan to address in the future. Here are links to those plans I have posted to date.

Taxes & welfare - The Johnson Tax Code
http://jtax.blogspot.com
Fuels - Tribrid Vehicle, The - Overview
http://SUPERfuel.blogspot.com
Fuels - Tribrid© Vehicle Economy, The
http://SUPERfueli.blogspot.com
Fuels - Gasoline and diesel alternatives
http://cheapfuels.blogspot.com
Drugs - A Real Answer to the Drug Problem
http://hjdrugprb.blogspot.com
Security - Solution to the ID security Problem
http://hjidsecurity.blogspot.com

What concrete plans do you have for our nation in the next fifty years? I’d certainly be eager to read them. Or are you, like so many liberals, so caught up in anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-capitalism, anti-whatever effort you have no time for creative, productive, positive efforts at building? I realize those are questions you don’t really want to answer so I will consider your silence an admission that you have no plans.

With kindest personal regards, Uncle Mike

To contact the author for any reason, Click Here!

I received the following from one of the more liberal members of my family. It’s a letter from Congressman Murtha asking for donations. I suggest that to understand what the congressman is saying you substitute the words, "Have an Honest Debate over How to Raise the White Flag of Defeat and Surrender," when he says, "Have an Honest Debate For the Safety of Our Troops." That’s actually what he means.

America wants and deserves real answers on Iraq: What is the clear definition of success? Is there a plan? How much longer and how many more lives? In short, what is the end game? Because we in Congress are charged with overseeing the safety of our sons and daughters when the president sends them into battle, it is our responsibility, our obligation to speak out for them. This obligation has not been met. That's why I am speaking out now. I offered a concrete plan to get our troops out of harm's way, where they have become the target. I don't expect every member of Congress to agree with my specific proposal in this debate - but I do expect them to take part in that debate, not to squash it. I am asking you to join me in demanding a real discussion of the war in Iraq from the U.S. House of Representatives. Tell Congress to Have an Honest Debate For the Safety of Our Troops.

For too long Congress has counted itself out of any real debate on Iraq policy. We didn't talk about troop levels, even after the White House fired General Shinseki because he complained the levels were too low. One problem we encountered was the lack of proper training for our troops; service members were placed to guard the prisons but weren't trained; consequently we had Abu Ghraib, and no action from Congress. And if you look at the casualties, they have doubled since then. It's time to change our course - we can't just sit back any longer. I've taken a lot of trips to Iraq. When I came back from my last one, I had become convinced we were making no progress at all. This can't be Republican and Democrat. It can't be recrimination one way or the other. We have to work this thing out, and we can't let a real solution get caught in the crossfire of an understandably heated political fight. It's time for a serious conversation, not more rhetoric. Tell Congress to Have an Honest Debate For the Safety of Our Troops.

The past few weeks have had a lot of firsts for me. I have never sought out the spotlight, or even taken the lead in a House floor debate the way I did a few weeks ago. And I've never signed an email like this before. But I see the beginning of a debate that is long overdue, and we can't afford to let it get overtaken by talking points or the news cycle. I'm offering this petition, which will be delivered to Speaker of the House in order to keep our Congress focused where it should have been all along. I hope you'll sign if you agree.

No Congressman Murtha, I don’t agree. Congress has a sworn duty to focus on winning both the war and the peace in Iraq with a resounding victory. By your own words, you want us defeated. This is but one more of thousands of efforts by liberal Democrats - the ones I call the Feudals - to bring this country to its knees in another humiliating defeat like Viet Nam. And, no! I was not in favor of the Viet Nam war. I didn’t think the whole of Southeast Asia was worth the sacrifice of a single American life. We would have won that war easily and with a lot less loss of life on both sides were it not for the fact that liberal politicians micro-managed the war for political gain in America. I can absolutely guarantee if politicians like Murtha, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi and the other liberal self-servers were in power at the time of the first Gulf War that Saddam Hussein would now control not only Kuwait but Saudi Arabia and the entire Arabian peninsula. These politicians are now trying desperately to help our enemies by encouraging insurrection and terrorism. All I can conclude is that they hope to regain power by bringing our nation to defeat and retreat in the Middle East. They will gain as they blame this defeat that they will have helped engineer on Bush and his administration.

All you have to do is listen to the propaganda from al Gazeera and al Queda to hear the same words as come out of the mouths of liberal Democrats. I like to think these liberals are just too stupid to realize how much they are helping and encouraging our enemies. The alternative is too frightening to consider. These enemies are also the enemies of free Iraqis as well.

The brutal dictators of the world are in a huge majority in the UN. The freedom Americans have always espoused and supported strikes fear into the hearts of these despots. That’s why the majority of nations hate America - their tyrants fear for their lives. The common people don’t, but they have little effect on the state press in so many oppressed nations and the liberal press elsewhere.

If the policies that liberal Democrats now propose and efforts they now oppose were in power during World War II, I guarantee you that Japan would have occupied western America and Germany would have occupied the eastern half. If they had merely been in control when "The Bomb" was proposed, it wouldn’t have been dropped and a million more Americans and several million more Japanese would have died.

France is just beginning to feel the effects of a Muslim invasion that has been going on for decades. Up until now they have been able to sweep much of these troubles under the carpet. I predict things are going to get much worse in France and Germany will soon follow. All you have to do to understand what us going to happen is to read what Bin Laden and other Wahabi Muslims are writing. Iraq is the keystone. Bin Laden even says so. We didn’t believe his threats of terror and warfare before 9-11 and apparently liberal Democrats have gone back to considering he, al Queda and the terrorists (freedom fighters to liberal Democrats) no longer pose a threat. I would prefer we lose two-thousand, three-thousand, or even more in Iraq then two or three hundreds of thousands in American streets.

Have any of you ever read or listened to George Bush’s plan for victory in creating a democratic Iraq? It was published on the Whitehouse web site more than two years ago. Probably not. That way you can continue to say he has no plan. The liberal Democrat plan is to provide al Queda and other Muslim terrorists a specific timetable for the withdrawal of our troops so they can plan their takeover as our troops leave. How can any human being who doesn’t want to ensure our total defeat possibly make such a proposal. I like to think it is merely stupidity, but fear there is a far more sinister purpose. The truth of the matter is that if America perseveres and does create a free and democratic Iraq, it will be a huge blow to Muslim extremists. That’s why these despots are trying so hard with murder and mayhem toward innocents. A free Iraq would also spell the death knell for liberalism in America for a very long time. That’s why you don’t want us to succeed!

Remember the fiasco in Mogadishu with American bodies being dragged through the streets? Weren’t liberals in control during that action? And how about the blunder in the desert when we were supposed to be rescuing the hostages from Iran? By what effort and at whose direction did those hostages finally come home? Congressman Murtha, if you want lots of people to die and America to look weak and ineffective, turn the military over to liberals. If you want the least number to die and real freedom for the peoples involved, count on good old conservative Republicans. I suppose you will continue to propose we wave the white flag of defeat and surrender so the despots of the world will be assured they have nothing to fear from America. Then, the "shot heard 'round the world" will have been effectively silenced. Perhaps you want the world to forget completely what we Americans started at Lexington and Concord.

Howard Johnson

Click on http://hjbloglist.blogspot.com - It has links to all my other sites.

To contact the author for any reason, Click Here!