The New Road

I agree with:

I'm really worried about our troops out there. If they go in hard it is going to be very bloody, and if they back off it's going to be worse.

I'm also worried about our troops.

Why do you want to impeach Bush? Please tell me you're not reciting moveon.org socialist propaganda.

How do my problems with Bush make me a socialist?

I have a sneaking suspicion that all conservatives consider liberals to be socialist. We don't like Bush there for we must be communists.

I for one haven't felt a need to check out moveon.org because I know they would be preaching to me the choir. I saw their ad on TV and thought it was great. We do need to MOVE ON from the hell whole Bush has managed to dump us in. We may not have liked Clinton's personal choices but at least the country was considerably better off four years ago.

I don't think problems with Bush make you a socialist. However, the only call to impeach him that I've seen is from moveon.org and Saros's views are markedly socialist.

The international community was with us going in. Nobody said we were going to clean up the mess in Iraq easily and without casualties. It's ugly, but I believe it is necessary. Terrorists lie and aren't known for negotiation.

The international community was definitely not with us as we were going into Iraq. We had the support of the world community when we went into Afghanistan, but we squandered that support with our invasion of Iraq.

You mention terrorists when it comes to Iraq. Has that linkage been proven?

BTW, 'Worse Than Watergate', by Dean, advocates impeachment for Bush.

I think that linkage is being proven every day. Some were already there; more have come in to help.

I haven't read the Dean article or speech, but I'll look for it.

And as for the country being better off four years ago . . . yeah, ignorance is bliss. September 11th happened while we were unaware. You and me, I mean. Not the powers that be. I remember the day that Clinton bombed Iraq during the Lewinsky (I don't even know what to call it -thing?) I walked into the office and in disbelief said, "We just bombed Iraq! What the hell is this all about?!?" And of course, I thought it was a diversion. But now we have an international war on our soil and it's us or them. I would love to go back in time, too, and change their hearts before the hatred was so consuming. But it's there. It would still be there if Gore had won.

Some comments:

1) Gore did win.

2) Gore would have gone into Afghanistan. There was really no choice there. But he would have done a real job there, since it would have been a primary objective. Not this 5% of our wartime manpower commitment. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq. They were in Afghanistan. Now they are in both places because of the insanity of the war in Iraq.

3) There was no linkage between Saddam and Al Qaeda. We are fighting them in Iraq now because 1) we are there and that makes us a target, and 2) because we have destabilized the country badly by invading and occupying it. If you are of the opinion that this 'linkage is being proven every day' because we are being attacked every day, that is our own damn fault for going into a country that was no real threat to us. Is that world safer after our removal of Saddam? No. In fact it's more dangerous because now our invasion of an Arab state has created a whole new Al Qaeda recruitment drive.

As I was listening to Bush last night I was blown away by the arrogance and ignorance of his statements. We are invading a sovereign country and setting up a government based on our own beliefs and ideals? Women's suffrage? While I agree with that as a matter of principle, it's not our place to go around invading countries and forcing them to live by our philosophy. The same man who said during the election that he would not be involved in nation building is doing just that right now, and is lying through his teeth when he says that we are not a 'new American empire':

Empire: Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control

Sounds like our position in Iraq to me.

Facts:

Were there Al Qaeda in Iraq before the war? No. There is no facts that support that claim. In fact Osama Bin Laden was opposed on principle to Saddam's secular state. The two men were fundamentally at odds with each other. And from what we have learned in the post 9/11 period, Al Qaeda needs no state backing to be extremely effective in the field. Osama didn't need to be in Iraq, and it would have been difficult to operate there. Afghanistan and Yemen provide fertile and willing bases for Al Qaeda and Saudia Arabia has masses of willing funders.

Were there Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? No. Did Saddam lie? Strangely not. But it looks like he was playing an elaborate shell game to hide the truth both from his own people and from foreign spies.

Has Bush's justification for war changed? Yes. Several times. It went from Weapons of Mass Destruction, to abuse of his citizens, to now ecologic concerns (the destruction of the wetlands).

Frankly I have never been at odds with a President to this degree. I didn't have a problem with Gulf War I. I had no problem with Somalia or Kosovo. But I have real doubts and concerns about this one. I think the (ever changing) motives are wrong. I think the timing is wrong. I think it's turning most of the civilized world against us. And I think it's a war that is more about Bush's private agendas then about what is good for America.

I'm not a communist. I'm not a socialist. I'm a proud American, and I support our troops. And I do have the right, as guaranteed by the first amendment, and my obligation, as an American, to voice my objection to the war.

In November, one of us will be sitting in disbelief that the other side won.

After Jack's articulate point by point response the best you could come up with is one of us will be disappointed -
well Duh!