Friday, December 09, 2005

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!

4 Comments:

At 10:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous 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.

 
At 7:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous 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.

 
At 6:10 AM, Blogger 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 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

 
At 5:41 PM, Blogger 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

 

Post a Comment

<< Home