Mustering the courage to fight the war
For loyal readers of this space, I do not apologize for the repetition of facts in this post or any other post I publish. Some may feel I'm beating a dead horse by hammering away on such a short list of topics recently, but it is precisely because the horse isn't dead . . . it's very much alive . . . that I do so. The liberals fantastic distortion of facts on race relations and the war against terrorists needs to be confronted. This blog is one man's attempt to combat the distortion.
To wit, I encourage anyone serious about improving race relations in this Country that gets into a race relations conversation with a liberal extremist to use any of the Sen. Byrd stuff I've written over the life of this blog to expose how disingenuous the Democrats are about improving race relations.
Anyway, moving on, if the Boston Globe was ever interested in firing up their hugely liberal readership, the first letter certainly would be the one to publish.
Editor,
Mr. Robert Mann started his cheerleading of those promoting surrender in Iraq with, "Senator Edward M. Kennedy's proposal last week to withhold funds for escalating the war in Iraq is a bold effort to stop what many Americans perceive as a lost cause. While the President's veto power makes it unlikely that Kennedy and his allies will succeed, history suggest the tactic may ultimately be an effective way to end the war - but only if its supporters are willing to endure short-term political setback (Mustering the courage to end war, January 15, A11)." That 70% of American respondents answered "no" to every single major poll that asked "Do you support the President's plan to send more troops to Iraq" pretty much quashes Mr. Mann's ridiculous column before he can even get to the third sentence.
Taken from the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation Profile in Courage website, "The (Profile in Courage) Award is named for President Kennedy’s 1957 Pulitzer prize-winning book, Profiles in Courage, which recounts the stories of eight U.S. Senators who risked their careers by taking principled stands for unpopular positions." How ironic it is going to be when Sen. Kennedy presents the Profile in Courage Award to President George W. Bush in about 2012 for the President's courageous 2007 - 2008 stand against terrorists and opportunistic politicians back-dropped by far too many drive-thru-minded Americans. (End of first letter.)
Of course, I'd concede that Sen. Kennedy would be deserving of the Award himself if he ever made the presentation.
Next, Ms. Milligan, a Boston Globe writer, is usually pretty good about writing me right back when I respond to one of her stories and I blind-copy her. So far, I haven't heard from her on the letter below.
Editor,
Ms. Susan Milligan had it exactly right when she wrote, " . . . (Sen. Hillary) Clinton . . . voted for the authorization to use force in Iraq . . . she (Clinton) said she supports phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but without a specific deadline (Clinton toughens stance on Bush war plan, January 18, A2)."
Coupled with the fact that Sen. Clinton voted for war funding every single time she had an opportunity, it's hard to see any difference between Sen. Clinton's position on the war against terrorists and President Bush's. And, just for those scoring at home, Sen. Clinton's two most significant votes for war funding were for $60 billion on October 7, 2005 and for $70 billion on September 7, 2006.
Given that Sen. Clinton won re-election by 1.5 million votes, no she didn't get 1.5 million votes, she won by 1.5 million votes, I do struggle to see how the 2006 elections were a repudiation of the Bush/Clinton war against terrorists when the only one of the two that was on a ballot in 2006 won in a super-landslide.
Anyway, I just thought the readers of the Boston Globe would appreciate some facts appearing on the editorial pages for a change. (End of second letter.)
I gave myself 10 hours to write this post; it only took me 15 minutes. I'm nine hours and 45 minutes ahead of schedule. Maybe I can have a significant role in the Democrat-controlled House, no? Oh, and my clock was running the whole time.
For loyal readers of this space, I do not apologize for the repetition of facts in this post or any other post I publish. Some may feel I'm beating a dead horse by hammering away on such a short list of topics recently, but it is precisely because the horse isn't dead . . . it's very much alive . . . that I do so. The liberals fantastic distortion of facts on race relations and the war against terrorists needs to be confronted. This blog is one man's attempt to combat the distortion.
To wit, I encourage anyone serious about improving race relations in this Country that gets into a race relations conversation with a liberal extremist to use any of the Sen. Byrd stuff I've written over the life of this blog to expose how disingenuous the Democrats are about improving race relations.
Anyway, moving on, if the Boston Globe was ever interested in firing up their hugely liberal readership, the first letter certainly would be the one to publish.
Editor,
Mr. Robert Mann started his cheerleading of those promoting surrender in Iraq with, "Senator Edward M. Kennedy's proposal last week to withhold funds for escalating the war in Iraq is a bold effort to stop what many Americans perceive as a lost cause. While the President's veto power makes it unlikely that Kennedy and his allies will succeed, history suggest the tactic may ultimately be an effective way to end the war - but only if its supporters are willing to endure short-term political setback (Mustering the courage to end war, January 15, A11)." That 70% of American respondents answered "no" to every single major poll that asked "Do you support the President's plan to send more troops to Iraq" pretty much quashes Mr. Mann's ridiculous column before he can even get to the third sentence.
Taken from the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation Profile in Courage website, "The (Profile in Courage) Award is named for President Kennedy’s 1957 Pulitzer prize-winning book, Profiles in Courage, which recounts the stories of eight U.S. Senators who risked their careers by taking principled stands for unpopular positions." How ironic it is going to be when Sen. Kennedy presents the Profile in Courage Award to President George W. Bush in about 2012 for the President's courageous 2007 - 2008 stand against terrorists and opportunistic politicians back-dropped by far too many drive-thru-minded Americans. (End of first letter.)
Of course, I'd concede that Sen. Kennedy would be deserving of the Award himself if he ever made the presentation.
Next, Ms. Milligan, a Boston Globe writer, is usually pretty good about writing me right back when I respond to one of her stories and I blind-copy her. So far, I haven't heard from her on the letter below.
Editor,
Ms. Susan Milligan had it exactly right when she wrote, " . . . (Sen. Hillary) Clinton . . . voted for the authorization to use force in Iraq . . . she (Clinton) said she supports phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but without a specific deadline (Clinton toughens stance on Bush war plan, January 18, A2)."
Coupled with the fact that Sen. Clinton voted for war funding every single time she had an opportunity, it's hard to see any difference between Sen. Clinton's position on the war against terrorists and President Bush's. And, just for those scoring at home, Sen. Clinton's two most significant votes for war funding were for $60 billion on October 7, 2005 and for $70 billion on September 7, 2006.
Given that Sen. Clinton won re-election by 1.5 million votes, no she didn't get 1.5 million votes, she won by 1.5 million votes, I do struggle to see how the 2006 elections were a repudiation of the Bush/Clinton war against terrorists when the only one of the two that was on a ballot in 2006 won in a super-landslide.
Anyway, I just thought the readers of the Boston Globe would appreciate some facts appearing on the editorial pages for a change. (End of second letter.)
I gave myself 10 hours to write this post; it only took me 15 minutes. I'm nine hours and 45 minutes ahead of schedule. Maybe I can have a significant role in the Democrat-controlled House, no? Oh, and my clock was running the whole time.
posted by Zack at 5:10 PM
1 Comments:
why the lack of comments here?
Post a Comment
<< Home