Hold on, Mr. President!!

Dear Mr President,

What in the blue-blazin' Hell do you think you're doing? You may have lost your mind, and you may think I've lost my mind but I haven't!

You know, I've kept up with the foreign affairs back when you were still drinking harder than your neices are now, I know that Saddam needed removing, I know that Iran has been a bad spot in the world, and I've kept up with a boat load of other things on top of that. But you know what? I also know when someone hasn't paid their bill when they're trying to charge more to their account!

I notice the rhetoric directed at Iran is being ratcheted up. On the surface I am tempted to agree with you. They are a safe port in the storm for terrorists. They do finance and arm the Hesbolah, no doubt. But I'm not so sure your noise directed at them is a gfood thing, and I'll tell you why:

I bought into the "Saddam must go now" notion, lock, stock and barrel. It all fit! Everything you said was just as I'd suspected for years. But here's the problem, George. Other than a mobile chemical weapons lab, nothing that has been reported has been confirmed as being true as far as the driving WMD's are concerned. AndI'll ell you something else, Mr. President, in a few weeks I won't care if you find 10 tons of the stuff, I'll suspect you guys planted it there to make everyone who supported you happy. Well, I'm not going to be one of those guys who are going to buy it.

Sure, you "liberated" the Iraqi people. That became the big rallying phrase early on into the war. Guess what? I don't care. Liberation isn't our job. Security of the nation is the job you are to be interested in, not liberation of others. You call yourself liberating these people, and for the sake of the children I'm glad it happened, but how long do you think a liberation will last if it isn't conducted by the people themselves? The gift was cheap for them so it will be handled like a cheap thing.

No, Mr. President, you need to hand over undeniable proof that what you claimed was in Iraq was actually there.
Then, and only then, will we talk about Iran.

And this time, undeniable proof is demanded up front. You'll not be given the privelige of deferred payment.

As a matter of fact, I say no now. You'll make even our staunch allies in the region nervous as heck if you do that. Go about it another way.

Thanks Thomas!

Glad to see youre now asking those questions Bush dont want people asking.

I honestly think that eventually, enough people will start getting pissed off.

I have friends in the gulf right now who basically are sitting there, pretty pissed off, thinking they were comin in to destroy bad stuff, and have intead been chasing spider farts. The more dissent we brew, the less chances of Bush getting re-elected.

problem is, which tryant will follow him?

I see you are coming to see our side of the argument now TC. It is good that people are starting to ask questions. Questions that should have been asked when the UN team found nothing. With his success and support in in Iraq, who knows what Mr. Bush will blunder into next. I hope that as he does more and more audacious things, more and more people will withdraw his support. He might feel the same way Hitler did after invading Czeckoslovakia, appeased by the support he has gotten and ready to invade other countries for more support. He may not realize that as he breaks more and more international laws he will be opposed. If you appease a leader, he will only ask for more.

You know the children's book If you give a mouse a cookie?

Well this is If you give a Bush a country. He will only ask for more.

XAOS

wow, of all the people who I'd least expect to start questioning the man in charge. So what is it that made you start questioning this now TC?

My hunch on TC's letter to the President is this. I have been hanging arond here a long time and have read many of TC's posts. He is more consevative than I, that is for sure, but we both agree on one thing: protect the U.S. first and foremost. Unless we feel safe, we can't help anyone else. I think TC is just expressing this. I might be wrong though.

BTW TC: I agree wholeheartedly, I even posted an extended tract here (somewhere) about how liberals like myself could stand up for this war. I went out on a limb and did that and now I look like a fool to alot of people since nothing we said we were going to do is happening.

Originally posted by Grommer
wow, of all the people who I'd least expect to start questioning the man in charge. So what is it that made you start questioning this now TC?

I think I know. Conservatives by nature are mostly logical in their thinking. They refuse to follow like mice behind a pied piper the way liberals do. Hell, believe it or not, I've heard Rush Limbaugh rip the president a new one on several occasions. They don't look at themselves as followers of royalty but as people who have chosen a representative to foster their beliefs and will let them know it if they get out of hand. Mr. Bush isn't the end all be all. He's just a guy hired to do a job and if he can't, he can be replaced. Companies do it everyday. Just because you hire a CEO, doesn't mean you take direction from him. He always answers to the board or directors who represent the stock holders.

I also disagree with doing anything in Iran. If we need to go in to arrest terrorist under the war on terror, I think thats one thing but a war to defeat the country is certainly unwarranted at this time. I think most of us agreed that 12 years was long enough to deal with Saddam's continued threats but attention must now turn back to defense of the US through control of her borders and stopping the terrorist in our own country.

I think I'm still in shock.

But I just thought I'd pat TC on the back for having the guts to admit that he may have been misled.

That is true, we do not follow blindly, we base our opinions of well grounded beliefs and documentation. We have a tendancy to quickly believe those who speak our language as for such a long time that language has been supressed. That doesn't mean we don't look for inconsistencies, though.

Observer, you didn't look bad by writing what you did, it is not you who are out of sinc, it is our leadership, it would appear.

What caused me to shift positions? The evidence, or lack thereof, of course. Lookit, I haven't seen enough to justify hitting Saddam instead of other targets. We spent alot of money and credibility striking Saddam. That region isn't the type to go marching throuigh a bunch of nations and not get the whole region after your hide. Was that the best target? And now the "Chatter", as they like to call it, would indicate Iran is next on the short list? Nope, the confidence is lost, from now on proof first is necessary. Show me the economic "Bang for the Buck", and moral righteousness. I mean proof, not vague intel.

Originally posted by dom
I think I'm still in shock.

But I just thought I'd pat TC on the back for having the guts to admit that he may have been misled.

Thanks, dom.

Funny, at work during break, we were having our usual political discussion. I went on in a rather strong manner how Bush is not delivering the goods and seems to be wanting to do a little more shopping on our credit card and it was as if all the conservatives were waiting for someone else to say it.

Bush may think his chances for reelection are in the bag, and they may very well be if the democrats can't find any better than Kerry. I was talking to my father, the conservative patriarch of the family, and we agreed that if Lieberman tries it without Gore this time, he might be a man worth considering. Bush with a Republican congress might be more dangerous than Lieberman at his absolute worst with a Republican congress.

I am not as surprised as some by TC's appeal to his President.

I have never doubted that TC's motives for supporting the recent action were rooted in a strong love for his country and a desire to see it's citizens secure from more attacks such as happened on 9/11.
I did disagree that that action would result in the desired outcome.
I read somewhere recently that at the height of British power ,during the 19th century,Britain fought on average 1 campaign every year for 60 years.The problem was that as soon as an objective was taken to make previous vital interests secure other threats emerged.
I don't think the Axis of Evil speech was just words but a statement of intent and each new war will create more terrorists and make the USA les safe.The only way that new terrorist atrocities can be thwarted will entail restricting the freedoms of the people of the USA.
Something none of us want.
The USA is the greatest nation on Earth and some of the best people I have ever met are from there.I am not Anti-American.For me America is a vibrant country and a potentially a force for good in the world but there are great dangers for her people if she continues along this path.

Saddam shouldn't have tried to kill the Texan's daddy. It's that simple

Nothing is that simple.

I think tut was joking. I hope tut was joking.

XAOS

TC, get yourself together, dammit. What are you doing??

I do think that if the world was willing to let the UN take its time to find WMD�s that the administration and military should be afforded more time to find them as well. At this point Saddam is out of power and the weapons are less of a threat; I therefore don�t think trying to find those weapons, right now, should be a priority. Seems to me Iraqis need security and safety, running water, and electricity among other things. Emphasis should be placed on that as opposed to mollifying those who didn�t want the war in the first place. However, TC makes great points, as usual. At some point, I think, the administration needs at least do something that satisfies those who did support the war. Personally, I expect, and preferably all three, of the following to be found: wmd�s, Saddam, bin laden. And sooner rather than later. Nor can I dismiss that some minor reports that I�ve read that Saddam ordered weapons to be destroyed right when the war started. Saddam knew he would be uprooted soon, he knew coalition forces were prepared for chemical weapons, and he knew we would probably all be sitting here questioning their existence in the first place. To me, I think that is the last and best jibe he could make at the US. Otherwise, using them and/or not destroying them would have been advantageous to Bush. We may never know. Nor will we never know what could have happened if we let Saddam remain in power.

OK, I admit I didn't think TC would be one to start this thread but hey, It had to be said
I do agree. For instance, Last night I was watching CNN with my wife and something came on Wolf Blitzer about a poll. Something along the lines of "What should America do about Iran harboring terrorists?" or somesuch.
That actually pissed me off. I see NO proof that Iran is doing any such thing as a nation united. I do think that the way things are run are a bit screwy but is it really our problem right now? So, I just blurted out "NOTHING, let the regime collapse on it's own. The people seem to be on the right track already!"
Needless to say my wife looked at me funny since I'm a semi right winger and she's a wimp...err uhh I meant Left. (just kidding )

It is absolutely time for us to worry about some domestic issues though. This tax cut is a start but I think a LOT more can be done here at home.
1. Tear up the "Patriot act" money can be better spent elsewhere.
2. Remind Bush who got him as many votes as he got (see my pic).
3. If we need a new threat to look at, put N. Korea dead center in our sights but use diplomacy for oh, maybe 12 years?
4. Support the states when you raise the silly threat level rather than bankrupting them with it.(see point 1)
5. and least important. Either learn to say the word Nuclear or don't let the speech writers include it!


[Edited on 28-5-2003 by Fry2]

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Dear Mr President,

What in the blue-blazin' Hell do you think you're doing? You may have lost your mind, and you may think I've lost my mind but I haven't!

You know, I've kept up with the foreign affairs back when you were still drinking harder than your neices are now, I know that Saddam needed removing, I know that Iran has been a bad spot in the world, and I've kept up with a boat load of other things on top of that. But you know what? I also know when someone hasn't paid their bill when they're trying to charge more to their account!

I notice the rhetoric directed at Iran is being ratcheted up. On the surface I am tempted to agree with you. They are a safe port in the storm for terrorists. They do finance and arm the Hesbolah, no doubt. But I'm not so sure your noise directed at them is a gfood thing, and I'll tell you why:

I bought into the "Saddam must go now" notion, lock, stock and barrel. It all fit! Everything you said was just as I'd suspected for years. But here's the problem, George. Other than a mobile chemical weapons lab, nothing that has been reported has been confirmed as being true as far as the driving WMD's are concerned. AndI'll ell you something else, Mr. President, in a few weeks I won't care if you find 10 tons of the stuff, I'll suspect you guys planted it there to make everyone who supported you happy. Well, I'm not going to be one of those guys who are going to buy it.

Sure, you "liberated" the Iraqi people. That became the big rallying phrase early on into the war. Guess what? I don't care. Liberation isn't our job. Security of the nation is the job you are to be interested in, not liberation of others. You call yourself liberating these people, and for the sake of the children I'm glad it happened, but how long do you think a liberation will last if it isn't conducted by the people themselves? The gift was cheap for them so it will be handled like a cheap thing.

No, Mr. President, you need to hand over undeniable proof that what you claimed was in Iraq was actually there.
Then, and only then, will we talk about Iran.

And this time, undeniable proof is demanded up front. You'll not be given the privelige of deferred payment.

As a matter of fact, I say no now. You'll make even our staunch allies in the region nervous as heck if you do that. Go about it another way.

WELL, ITS ABOUT DAMN TIME! Welcome to reality!

Anyone who thinks the U.S. would plant WMD in Iraq would be a lunatic in my book.

Originally posted by Bob88
I do think that if the world was willing to let the UN take its time to find WMD�s that the administration and military should be afforded more time to find them as well. At this point Saddam is out of power and the weapons are less of a threat; I therefore don�t think trying to find those weapons, right now, should be a priority. Seems to me Iraqis need security and safety, running water, and electricity among other things. Emphasis should be placed on that as opposed to mollifying those who didn�t want the war in the first place. However, TC makes great points, as usual. At some point, I think, the administration needs at least do something that satisfies those who did support the war. Personally, I expect, and preferably all three, of the following to be found: wmd�s, Saddam, bin laden. And sooner rather than later. Nor can I dismiss that some minor reports that I�ve read that Saddam ordered weapons to be destroyed right when the war started. Saddam knew he would be uprooted soon, he knew coalition forces were prepared for chemical weapons, and he knew we would probably all be sitting here questioning their existence in the first place. To me, I think that is the last and best jibe he could make at the US. Otherwise, using them and/or not destroying them would have been advantageous to Bush. We may never know. Nor will we never know what could have happened if we let Saddam remain in power.

Bob,How much time do you want??The USA has supposedly had these guys under surveillance for the last 7 months.Colin Powel named names and places at the security council remember the anthrax vile and the screen show?Rumsfeld has now said that he doesn't think they will find any weapons.The whole administration is moving away from that argument.
I think we can safely say that the USA was in no direct danger before the war started.There has been very little proof that Saddam had any connection with Al Qaeda so that is another false reason exposed.
Let's put that aside because the war has been fought now.You say that the Iraqis need there utilities back and law and order.Ofcourse you are right but Bob you have had 6 weeks.The fact that the US civilian leader was changed shows that there have been problems at the US end.It is a # up and US soldiers are being killed in low level guerilla warfare everyday now.

I don't think everything has gone smoothly and is going smoothly now and to pretend otherwise is not patriotic.

for me, I know that Saddam had and used wmds. That's the reality. It's only safe to assume Saddam can do the same again. Saddam hiding them, destroying them, handing them off to Syria, not using them, etc is completely plausible. By doing that he keeps the world divided on the 'Iraq' issue. It's quite a move on his part and I'd only expect for him to do that. He knew his days were numbered.

Now, I surely believe the administration might have 'sold' certain aspects of the war. C'mon, it's marketing 101 and politics. But, when equating that to the fact we have no way of knowing what Saddam is up and intelligence the US might not be able to reveal and it, to me, evens out. But thats just me.

And, if it's just all about the oil as some think, I bet there are some oppressed people out there, say in NK, who only wish their land had oil so that the US would overthrow the government which oppresses them.

I saw a political cartoon in a mag. that showed some prisoners in Cuba and the caption said something like "how could we [the prisoners] tie al-qaeda to Castro"

And, if the US does find some wmd's some apparatchik will write a book claiming the US planted them. Nothing will be good enough for some.

At the end of the day a horrible tryant is out of power. That we know for sure.

[Edited on 29-5-2003 by Bob88]

Yes, a horrible tyrant is out of power, there's no doubt in that.
There is also no doubt in my mind that the world is a safer place now that he is gone. I say this because they have a saying over there; an enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine. This means that Saddam and bin Laden may not be on the same sheet of music but can operate together to inflict damage upon us. And, yes, there was information that linked Hussein with Laden. What made this information more credible was that it came from outside U.S. intelligence, French intel, I think.

But here's the sticking point. I, along with millions of others, was led to believe tha tthere were tons of this crap, the locations were generally known, they had up to date information, and it was necessary to move and move swiftly. Were this the case, I'd think they would've found more than a mobile weapons lab and a few drums of insecticide.

True enough, it is important to turn the lights on and get those people running water, but the ones who would search and find WMD's are not the ones to turn the freakin' lights on, or vice-versa. We do have the ability to multi-task, don't we? Doing one would in no way hinder the other.

Rallying the citizenry around the flag, or "selling" certain aspects of the war, I understand. During the sells pitch, I knew it was just that. But what I expected was the sells pitch to be grounded in the truth. It seems to me that they were as grounded in the truth as would be a used-car salesman. Otherwise, I'd be seeing at least a ton of WDM's on the news. At this point, I'd settle for a VW microbus jammed full of expired anthrax.

Here's the point of the matter. They were allowed to attack and conquer Hussein under the 90 days same as cash payment plan. Sure, it hasn't been 90 days, but you know what I mean.

I know that Iran is a nation that sponsors terrorism, they've been doing it for years. Were it not for their support of the terrorists, "Palestinians" might already be being taxes and dealing with their own inept government like the rest of us. Sure, Iran is possibly already proud owners of nukes, and if not, they're working that way, but you know what? Before this administration goes tearing off in the direction of Iran, I want clear proof, just as if I've never read any article in the last 20 years. Show me all, or sit down and cool your heels in that direction.

If these guys are making me nervous, just what do you think they're doing to the others in the Middle-Eastern region?