Justification for War I

My (the United States) next door neighbor (Saddam Hussein) is a Level 3 sex offender (he has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people). I know this because the State of Massachusetts (the Boston Globe, Sen. John F. Kerry, the United Nations, etc.) have told me so. He's been convicted multiple times. It's a matter of public record.

My next door neighbor stands at my propery line and makes menacing faces toward me.

He makes suggestive gestures when he sees my three kids playing in the backyard.

Finally, not willing to risk the safety of my children, I ask Sens. Clinton, Kerry, Edwards and Biden if I can kill my next door neighbor. They all vote "yes".

The "autopsy" on the neighbor reveals that he was completely incapable of harming my kids. Even today, all four support my action in killing my next door neighbor.

So, today, MoveOn.org is arguing for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Fine. Is this the position of Sens. Clinton, Kerry, Edwards and Biden? All four of these Senators are going to run for their party's presidential nomination in 2008; which of these will be the first to disavow their vote in 2002 and their support for the war on terror through August 2005?

If the "position" of the Democrat Party is withdrawal, then shouldn't someone in the Party be saying that right now? Even Sen. Russ Feingold (D, Minnesota), arguably the most vocal Senator against the war on terror, doesn't even call for an immediate pull-out. If the position of the Democrat Party is not pull-out, is one of these Senators going to try to "time" their flip-flop just as the Party's hatred for all things George W. Bush reaches a critical mass? Will the Party really nominate the person that tries to steal the drum major's staff?

Trust me on this, Ms. Cindy Sheehan is a much bigger problem for the Democrats than she is for President Bush. Yes, the Democrats may be enjoying the liberal media's enabling of this Bush-hater today, but she will ultimately divide the Democrats. Trust me on this.

Sent both of these letters to the Boston Globe recently; as of today, neither was published. Surprise, surprise.

My goodness, does anyone think that the MoveOn.org crowd could ever support Sen. Clinton after their hostility toward President Bush over the war on terror? Sen. Clinton supports the war! I cannot wait to see the rationalization when the time comes.

Letter #1

Conceding, just for the purpose of this letter, that President George W. Bush is stupid; how stupid, exactly, does that make Sen. John F. Kerry?

Either, enough with the "President Bush is stupid" letters and cartoons or at least never again use the words "brilliant" or "intellectual" or similar to describe Sen. Kerry.

To argue Bush is dumb and Kerry is brilliant certainly identifies at least somebody as REALLY stupid.


Letter #2

So it seems Ms. Cindy Sheehan and her pals in the liberal media are incapable of participating in an honest discussion of the merits of the war on terror. Oh, the fun they are having in mockingly asking if President Bush is so confident of his position "will he send his daughters to fight"?

Okay, let's play along. Since Sens. John F. Kerry and Hillary Clinton voted for the war and STILL support the war, will anyone in the liberal media ask if they are willing to send their daughters? Cannot we all imagine Sen. Kerry saying that he would send his daughters before he ultimately decided not to send them?

Or, can we please stop with the intellectually hollow, hate-Bush, cheap shots coupled with this equally cheap, but obligatory, response and, instead, have a real conversation on the merits of the war. The American people, but especially the soldiers fighting the war, deserve nothing less.

So, I recently spent 4 days with a guy from San Francisco. Yes, he's a liberal, but I didn't assume that when he introduced himself. I waited for the subject of politics to come up (about day 3) and he described himself that way.

Anyway, he launches right into the Iraq War and that Bush lied. Oh, my God, these people get their talking points from the same person . . . and that person knows how to say only one thing, "Bush lied about Iraq".

Well, if I could just spend 5 minutes talking to the liberal, single-talking-point, issuer, I'd like to ask him/her:

Why did Sen. Hillary Clinton vote for the Iraq War?

Why did Democrat presidential nominee Sen. John F. Kerry vote for the war?

Why did Democrat vice-presidential nominee Sen. John Edwards vote for the war?

Do you blame Sen. Kerry, 19 years as a United States Senator and a member of the Foreign Relations Committee with access to exactly the same intelligence that President Bush had, for not having the courage to ask ANY tough questions prior to his vote?

Are you disappointed that Sen. Kerry, supposedly a seasoned prosecutor, did not have the skill to ask ANY tough questions prior to his vote?

Is President Bush smarter than Sen. Kerry?

Do you blame Clinton holdover, former CIA Director Tenent, for faulty intelligence?

Do you give any credit to President Bush as a uniter for holding over one of Clinton's appointees?
Do you deny, as the Boston Globe DOES NOT deny, that Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction against his own people?

Do you deny, as Sen. Kerry DOES NOT deny, that Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction against his own people?

Since Sen. Clinton voted for the war and STILL supports the war, can she possibly be the Democrat Party's 2008 presidential nominee?

Did Tony Blair, Clinton's closest ally, become an idiot and liar on January 21, 2001?

Do you acknowledge that terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993? Do you acknowledge terrorists bombed two US embassies and a Navy warship (the US Cole) in the late 90's? Did you know that the POTUS for all 4 bombings was Clinton? Hum, do you think they hated us before Bush was elected?

I made no notes prior to this post; I just sat down and started typing, the questions just simply cascade one after the other?

Can a liberal answer any of these without looking ridiculous?

The item below was submitted to the Boston Globe on August 5 in response to a Derrick Z. Jackson column; in fairness to Mr. Jackson, he was not over-the-top anti-Republican in his column; he acknowledged that the Bush Administration was attracting African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans.

Editor,

The list of high-profile African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans in the Bush Administration that are setting policy and making law is greater than Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Alberto Gonzales as Mr. Jackson suggests (Can the GOP peel off the black vote?, August 5). The list should also include HUD Secretary, Alphonso Jackson (African-American), and Commerce Secretary, Carlos Gutierrez (Hispanic-American). And, of course, the list should have included Linda Chavez (Labor Secretary) and Miguel Estrada (Federal Appellate Court) but these two were denied posts by Senate Democrats. But, let’s not be superficial in assessing these appointments; the implication is insulting to African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and the Bush Administration. Rather, the Bush Administration has made in-roads with the African-American and Hispanic communities because of policy initiatives that have resonated with growing numbers of each community just as they have resonated with unhyphenated Americans.

When Mr. Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, says to the African-American community, “give us a chance” he is asking the community, and any other voting American for that matter, to listen to the message of the Republican Party. Listen to the message for a strong national defense. Listen to the message of lower personal income taxes and more personal property rights. Listen to the message of the “ownership society” (today, a greater percentage of blacks and Latinos have mortgages that at any other time in American history). Listen to the message of school vouchers that are currently saving hundreds of primarily African-American and Hispanic children from failed educations in cities like Cleveland and Philadelphia. And, yes, listen to the message promoting parental notification and condemning partial-birth abortion (having your values challenged hurts no matter your skin color).

If the African-American community does not want to marginalize itself in future elections in an ever-growing conservative Country, the community must cease voting monolithically for Democrats as Howard Dean and other Democrat Party leaders seem to insist. The community cannot continue to “unite” behind misguided leadership. The community must consider why 11% of their numbers voted for George W. Bush in 2004. Just maybe, more in the community will realize that freedom of thought is every bit as glorious as freedom from chains.

News flash to Democrats: if you want to have a say in who the U.S. Ambassador to the UN is, win an election or two. My goodness, the arrogance of losers that think they have more power than the winners.

Did anyone laugh as hard as I did upon reading the U.S. Justice Department is bringing suit against the city of Boston to oversee all elections through 2007. Wow, the liberal media appears to only mind when hate-filled Republicans question why so many dead peole voted in St. Louis, Philadelphia and Seattle and not when white, liberal elitists disenfranchise Asian-Americans in Boston.

News flash to Democrats: if you want to have a say in who sits on the U.S. Supreme Court, win an election or two. The winners of elections decide things not the losers; my goodness, the arrogance.