Tuesday, September 20, 2005

1. 2. 3. Debate!

Jeff's original blog post can be read on his blog at
  • Jeff's Blog

  • My response to Jeff's Blog Post

    I think that you would like to think that you're on the fence but this post has strong opinion. If you love America, which I do not doubt you do, then you have to love all of it. It is the right of the people to protest and question the officials that we have elected to office. I dont think that any American should ever cry censorship to any comment that a fellow American has to say about any of our elected officials no matter what stance the country is in, war or peace. Democracy only works when all sides are heard and sometimes people must be outspoken in order to make others listen.

    I have to question your "independent" stance when you make accusations the New York Times and Cindy Sheehan are only in business to propogate their "ultra-liberal views." The framing of your commentary does not project an independent stance.

    Did Iraq attack us on 9/11? No. Do Al Qaeda and Bin Laden deserve to be brought to justice for their crimes? ABSOLUTELY. That is why there is protest. The relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is sketchy at best and Bush himself has admitted that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11.

    If there were a DIRECT link to Hussein and his country in the 9/11 attacks I would be behind this war. If the war in Iraq was an operation to actively persue and dismantle Al Qaeda and Bin Laden I would be behind this war. If WMD were found in Iraq then I would think this war was worth the price that we have paid. That is what the war protests are about. That is why 68% of Americans believe that the war was not worth the price we have had to pay.

    I love this country very much. I am so saddened to see that my nation that I grew up revering as a model for the global community to follow has fallen into an image of greed and selfishness due to the ambitions of a handful of witless idealogues. Make no mistake about it when someone, foreign or domestic, attacks this country I will defend it with all my fiber and that is why I oppose Bush.

    Please dont be so trite as to think that you're a patriot because you stick up for the President because he's the President and we're at war and we shouldnt say anything bad about him. The slanted analogies to WWII dont hold any water. Give specific examples, make a case, tell me why YOU think the President and this War is correct.

    I look forward to our discourse.

    Jeff's Response

    irst of all, Adam my Friend. I NEVER EVER said Bush is 100%correct with this war! I understand some of his arguments, yes, but I never said it was the right or wrong thing to do. No one can really know what they would do unless they are in his shoes and knew what he knew. So you just lost the debate. I did say I want this to work out, we are in way to deep. Pulling out would be a disaster and send the wrong message to these terror nuts. Yes that’s my opinion

    Second: I never wrote about Saddam having links to Al Qaeda in my post.. did I?? . The whole WMD stuff. The whole world said Saddam had WMD’s every intelligence agency in the world said that. (Saudi, Jordanian, Russian, French, British, CIA....) Intelligence is never 100%, that’s the nature of intelligence. How do you know he did not move them??. We know he had them, Christ, he used them before. You know anyone in the intelligence community?? I do, a few “Big Boys” actually. Please don’t use the whole WMD argument. There is a lot of information the public does not know or understands about Intelligence, that’s all I can say about that.

    I am fair, did Bush have good reason to go in. That is really hard to say. I stand by what I said. No one can really know what they would do unless they are in his shoes and knew what he knew. Remember it is a post 9/11 world. There is no question he F’ed up the aftermath.

    There is a Huge Difference between questioning the war and “Undermining” it. You really think Cindy Sheehan is Patriotic... the flat out dishonest, hurtful things she says about America, she has gone way to far. Even the Liberals are going against her because she attacked Hillary... Call me a Right winged Nut then, I want nothing to do with those people. The Sheehan crowd gets "excited" every time they hear bad news about the war just to hurt Bush. New York Times ran more than 50 front-page stories on the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Was over 50 necessary?? Remember what happened when Newsweek ran that Flat out Untruthful story about the Koran being dropped in the toilet?? They retracted the story. A riot broke out and more anti-Americanism flamed in the Arab world, I don’t want to use the word censorship, but people need to be responsible and held accountable for there stories. People died because of Newsweeks fake story. No Question, more suicide bombers, used to kill our troops, were recruited with that fake story. Americans died.

    I am sticking to by my WW II theme.

    My Response to Jeff's Response

    You are avoiding my original challenge to you but yet you declare the debate over. I asked you to provide me with reasons you think that protestors should not protest against the war. You have just regurgitated banal facts that are common knowledge.

    Yes, many world intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The evidence that was used to make the case to the UN was dubious at best. Colin Powell brought with him photos of chemical plants that could or coulld not have been producing toxic chemicals. There was no way to tell from the photos. He also showed photos of rail cars that supposedly were mobile laboratories that could produce anthrax etc and could be deployed over the rail network. Still though, all I saw were pictures of rail cars from the sky and mock ups of what was supposedly inside of them. When Adlai Stevenson went to the UN during the Cuban Missile crisis he brought with him photos showing nuclear missles with USSR written on them stationed on the island of Cuba. Thats evidence, that is cause for concern. Now what other evidence there may be that wasnt shown is inconsequential. All I know is what the Bush administration showed the world to make their point. So if your "Big Boys" have some more compelling evidence and or insights on intelligence for the case for war in Iraq I encourage you to tell them to share it with us. 58% of us dont think this war was worth it, if there is secret evidence to prove us wrong now would be the time to divuldge it.

    If you have difficulty in defending Bush for engaging in the war ("...did Bush have good reason to go in. That is really hard to say.") then how can you defend the president if you admit that you arent sure he made the correct decision in the first place?

    Finally, I think that there is huge distinction between what Cindy Sheehan is doing and "undermining" the war effort. She wants Bush to be held accountable. If he went out to her and spoke to her in front of the entire media and said, "Cindy, Im sorry that its come this. I'm sorry that you son died and made some mistakes but I promise you that we are going to fix it and your sacrifice, your son's sacrifice will be vindicated." Thats all she wants. The entire situation could be diffused if he would admit that he made a mistake BUT he is going to fix it. The war protests are about accountability not about getting excited that Bush is failing. He does that on his own just fine, the media nor a mother of a fallen soldier do that TO him.

    The Abu Ghraib comment was a red herring.

    When I bring up the references to Saddam and Al Qaeda I do not mean to put words in your mouth. Those are my examples that I use to support my position for being against the war. I would like to hear some examples why you think the antiwar movement is damaging to the country, especially since 58% of the country think it was a mistake.

    To start, how is the Newsweek article, and the damage it caused, connected to what Cindy Sheehan is doing?


    Blogger Jeff said...

    I never said people can't protest that war. I am talking about the “extreme” people like Cindy Sheehan. Here is why I (Me) want nothing to do with her are her people and they HURT America:
    First of all Adam Ms. Sheehan met with the president all ready and had this to say: 2004 - "'I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.'
    "The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.
    "The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.
    "For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.
    For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.
    "'That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,' Cindy said."
    Now Cindy Sheehan is a loony Tune:

    1) She calls the president a murder and the USA is an “imperialistic” country. (Yeah that’s sounds real patriotic to me. America Imperialistic...your ok with that Adam)

    2) "We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!" (Wow, again very patriotic, what a bunch of B.S.)

    3)"If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his bullshit, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free?" (You’re still ok with this Adam...)

    4)"If he thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war." "We want our country back and, if we have to impeach everybody from George Bush down to the person who picks up dog shit in Washington, we will impeach all those people." (Wow, really sounds like she supports the troops)

    5) “9/11 was Pearl Harbor for the neo-conservatives’ agenda”. The U.S. government a “morally repugnant system.”. ”We began the killing as soon as we stepped foot on these shores and the killing has gone on unabated for over 200 years”. (She is not an anti-war prottestor she is an anti-american. So HURTFUL)

    6) “George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power.” (So we are “occupying” New Orleans now….really)

    So Adam you call Cindy Sheehan a valid anti-war protested who wants to hold the President accountable... So it’s ok her for her to say these hurtful things because she wants to hold Bush accountable. You’re Ok with her. Well I am not. The same way I want nothing to do with Right wing nuts like Pat Robertson who blamed 9/11 on Gay people. She is out to DESTORY Bush. He is smart as hell to say clear. And after she attacked Hillary…many Liberals are now saying is went too far. (Only because beloved Hillary was attacked).

    Newsweek ran that fake Koran story to undermine Bush and got burned for it just like Dan Rather. The same reason why New York Times ran over 50 front-page stories on the abuses at Abu Ghraib. You think they would have done that to Bill Clinton?.

    After the elections in Iraq, which turned out pretty well, the fear on the anti-bush crowd multiplied. If Iraq turns out to be a success, Bush would become a hero. So the need to undermine the Bush administration became more intense than ever. They tied with Social Security, but that did not take hold. Then “torture” became the hit topic and the media jumped on it. The truth is that abuse has occurred, but on a relatively small scale. According to General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the U.S. has detained about 68,000 people since 9/11 (most have been released), and there have been 325 investigations into alleged abuse. At the time of this research 6/2/05 only 100 cases of wrongdoing have been substantiated.

    Right now the American Civil Liberties Union is demanding the release of all Abu Ghraib photographs and videotapes. General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified in front of the judge that any further public exposition of prisoner abuse could endanger the lives of U.S. and allied troops. Myers, himself, has seen the abuse images that have not been made public and says, "The release (of them) would aid the recruitment efforts and other activities of insurgent elements, weaken the new democratic governments of Iraq and Afghanistan ... and increase the likelihood of violence against the United States interests, personnel, and citizens worldwide."

    (A fine quote to add- not my words): “What is the point of more Abu Ghraib pictures? We all know what happened there, how dismal and inexcusable it was. If the pictures advanced the story I could understand it, but this is just more of the same according to General Myers and his staff. And in a time of war, you give the benefit of any doubt to the top military commander, don't you?

    But the ACLU does not care what Myers thinks - it wants to embarrass the Bush administration, and if people die because of that, tough. After the Newsweek story The Muslims rampaged in a number of countries after that magazine falsely reported the holy book had been abused at Guantanamo Bay. At least 15 people were killed, hundreds injured. We know the story do we need to generate more anti-Americanism, more suicide bombers to kill our troops for something were already know. It’s the same type of pictures.

    The media loves Cindy Sheehan because it’s Hurting Bush. Well not any more the truth about her has come out. To Bad for Michel Moore, tell him to make another movie.

    Well the Intelligence debate, it’s really not cut and dry. Sorry Adam but you don’t seem to understand intelligence.

    Imagine this ok, - it’s right after the 9/11 attacks. The whole country is asking how the hell did this happen. You’re the President in charge if keeping American Safe. You have all this Intelligence (from all over the world) in front of you about Saddam. Read some of Hillary and Bill’s past speeachs even Kerry. They all said it. Saddam is a serious threat. You decide to take the peace-love- and-flower approach. Let’s be “sensitive”, the Middle East only hates American because of Israel.... And then one day BOOM, The city of Chicago is wiped off the face of the earth. Some Terrorist nut obtained a bomb through Saddam and walked into our country over the Mexican Border. Thousands of pounds of drugs are smuggled in daily over the border; a bomb would be no sweat. Cindy Sheehan We would have much tougher question’s to ask at Bush’s - Why did the president ignore the intelligence community? Why did we ignore Saddam’s past use of these WMD’s killings hundreds of thousands of his own people? (remember that Adam??) Why did we ignore his reckless and aggressive behavior toward the United States? (he was not excatly acting like a person who has nothing to hid, he also shot at our US plans daily)

    I think that’s a fair comment regarding Intellengence, don’t you. Nothing is cut and dry. Bush knew what he knew and made a choice to be “pro-active”. Its it the right decision? Only time will tell. I pry and hope so. I want this to work out for the good of America. What if the Intellengence was 100% correct , and he did nothing……what then. It’s a scary world. I don’t think Bush went into Iraq because he is evil or for oil. Did he lie about the threat, wlll read some past Speeches from the Clintons…they said the same thing. I am just glad I did not have to make these decsions. America is a good county and a beacon of hope around the world. I do appreahate your comments. I feel I proved to be fair and honest. You can be against this war and critize Bush all day long, read some of my Blogs, Bush reallys pisses me off a lot and continues to do so. But I never take it overboard and call him things worse then a child rapist, shit on America and Burn our flag at the same time claiming to be patriotic. That my opinions and I am sticking with them ALL!

    6:37 PM  
    Blogger Adam said...

    You bring to the table valid points. I have to agree with you that Sheehan is too loose with her speech and often times gets caught up in the personal attack and not the movement itself. However, I know that I support the antiwar movement as a matter of patriotism. I believe that Bush and his administration is a threat to this country and I simply want to protect our country from his tyranny.

    For the record, I hate Hillary and Bill. They are populists that never care about anything but the preservation of their own images.

    7:20 PM  
    Blogger Shelly said...

    I say we follow the Ukraine and fire the whole bunch!!! But waiting till 06, taking the house and senate back, and impeaching the bastards would be good clean fun!!!

    11:22 AM  
    Anonymous Randy said...

    Adam -
    I just wanted to let you know how much I enjoy your blog. I always find your views of things extremely exciting and correct. Please don't stop.

    1:20 AM  

    Post a Comment

    << Home

    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.

    Powered by Blogger

    Listed on BlogShares