GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Hypocrisy - n. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

AN OPEN LETTER TO TOM DASCHLE:

Dear Mr. Daschle,
I am hoping you can clear up a few things for me that have become quite confusing. You have been very vocal about your concern for the Administration seeking Congressional approval for action in Iraq (which was given in November) and the backing of the United Nations (Resolution 1441 unanimously approved). On March 18, 2003, you made comments about President Bush and his Administration saying, “I am saddened that this president has failed so miserably at diplomacy that it forces our country to go to war.”

Back in 1998 you stated that we need to “send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law.” Then you said, “Look, we have exhausted virtually every diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is, we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but did those “diplomatic efforts” you discuss involve Congress or the United Nations? I must’ve missed something. And what was the “rush to war” back then?

You seem to be primarily concerned that President Bush has not proven that Saddam Hussein presents, in your words, “a very imminent threat.” That’s a high bar. It seems less a realistic request of the Bush administration than a deliberately unattainable standard of evidence. For, you surely know, if President Bush had proof that the Iraqi threat were imminent, to say nothing of “very imminent,” the president wouldn’t waste time publishing the evidence. He would eliminate the threat.

But then you said on the floor of the Senate on October 10, 2002, “We know that Iraq maintains stockpiles of some of the world’s deadliest chemical weapons including VX, sarin, and mustard gas. We know that Iraq is developing deadlier ways to deliver these horrible weapons, including unmanned drones and long-range ballistic missiles. And we know Saddam Hussein is committed to one day possessing nuclear weapons.” At what point does this become a threat, I’m just curious. And is it your opinion that these “stockpiles” of “the world’s deadliest chemical weapons” still exist or not?

You stated, in support of Clinton’s actions, “if something wasn’t done, sooner or later, Saddam Hussein was going to use a bomb.”

From where I stand only three things have changed since 1998, Mr. Daschle:

1. The situation in Iraq has gotten much worse, including the absence of UN Inspectors for 4 years and more reports of mass development of WMDs by Saddam;

2. September 11th attacks on United States soil;

3. A Republican is in the White House.

Mr. Daschle, your hypocrisy is blatantly transparent. You are without shame. You are the most extreme example of a policital hack this country has ever seen. You, Mr. Daschle have taken a route that puts political affiliation and your own political aspirations above the needs of this country and its people. You, Mr. Daschle, are not fit to serve this great land. You are an embarassment to all our flag stands for.

The time has come for you, Mr. Daschle, to recognize that your extreme leftists views have isolated you in the political world and your thoughts, ideas and lack of judgment signal the end of your political career. You have done nothing but divide and polarize, all for personal benefit. It’s time for you to go.

Two things you might want to look up on your way out:

Patriotism - n. Love of and devotion to one’s country.

Devotion - n. Ardent, often selfless affection and dedication, as to a person or principle

You, Mr. Daschle are no American patriot.

Signed,
A Real American

Hypocrisy - n. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

Dear Mr. Daschle,
I am hoping you can clear up a few things for me that have become quite confusing. You have been very vocal about your concern for the Administration seeking Congressional approval for action in Iraq (which was given in November) and the backing of the United Nations (Resolution 1441 unanimously approved). On March 18, 2003, you made comments about President Bush and his Administration saying, “I am saddened that this president has failed so miserably at diplomacy that it forces our country to go to war.”

Back in 1998 you stated that we need to “send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law.” Then you said, “Look, we have exhausted virtually every diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is, we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but did those “diplomatic efforts” you discuss involve Congress or the United Nations? I must’ve missed something. And what was the “rush to war” back then?

You seem to be primarily concerned that President Bush has not proven that Saddam Hussein presents, in your words, “a very imminent threat.” That’s a high bar. It seems less a realistic request of the Bush administration than a deliberately unattainable standard of evidence. For, you surely know, if President Bush had proof that the Iraqi threat were imminent, to say nothing of “very imminent,” the president wouldn’t waste time publishing the evidence. He would eliminate the threat.

But then you said on the floor of the Senate on October 10, 2002, “We know that Iraq maintains stockpiles of some of the world’s deadliest chemical weapons including VX, sarin, and mustard gas. We know that Iraq is developing deadlier ways to deliver these horrible weapons, including unmanned drones and long-range ballistic missiles. And we know Saddam Hussein is committed to one day possessing nuclear weapons.” At what point does this become a threat, I’m just curious. And is it your opinion that these “stockpiles” of “the world’s deadliest chemical weapons” still exist or not?

You stated, in support of Clinton’s actions, “if something wasn’t done, sooner or later, Saddam Hussein was going to use a bomb.”

From where I stand only three things have changed since 1998, Mr. Daschle:

1. The situation in Iraq has gotten much worse, including the absence of UN Inspectors for 4 years and more reports of mass development of WMDs by Saddam;

2. September 11th attacks on United States soil;

3. A Republican is in the White House.

Mr. Daschle, your hypocrisy is blatantly transparent. You are without shame. You are the most extreme example of a political hack this country has ever seen. You, Mr. Daschle have taken a route that puts political affiliation and your own political aspirations above the needs of this country and its people. You, Mr. Daschle, are not fit to serve this great land. You are an embarrassment to all our flag stands for.

The time has come for you, Mr. Daschle, to recognize that your extreme leftists views have isolated you in the political world and your thoughts, ideas and lack of judgment signal the end of your political career. You have done nothing but divide and polarize, all for personal benefit. It’s time for you to go.

Two things you might want to look up on your way out:

Patriotism - n. Love of and devotion to one’s country.

Devotion - n. Ardent, often selfless affection and dedication, as to a person or principle

You, Mr. Daschle are no American patriot.

Signed,
A Real American

So Natalie Mains of the Dixie Chicks has finally given me inspiration to start this journey. I am tired of hearing the entertainment industry spouting their politics regardless of whether I agree with them or not. The media loves to swarm like sharks on every comment and the country further draws the dividing line down the middle. I’ve heard reports of Bush being called a baby killer, a nazi and more. But aren’t these the same people who support ABORTION? Who’s the baby killer?

The problem with the entertainment group publicizing their political viewpoints is that none of them represent “the American viewpoint” in whole.

You’ve got the Right: Ted Nugent, Fred Thompson, Pat Boone, Drew Carey, Dixie Carter, Charlie Daniels, Bo Derek, Charlton Heston, Toby Keith, Jackie Mason, Pat Sajak, Tom Selleck, Jane Seymour and Bruce Willis.

You’ve got the Left: Ed Asner, Alec Baldwin, George Clooney, Sheryl Crow, Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo, Richard Gere, Tom Hanks, Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Rob Reiner, Susan Sarandon, Martin Sheen, Barbra Streisand.

Then you’ve got some insignificants somewhere on the fringe. But the point is that these folks are ENTERTAINERS. As Americans, they have every right to say what they please, but making a living depends on the consumers which, unless completely apathetic, will fall into one of the groups listed above. When they spout off about non-entertainment issues, they begin to alienate people in their customer base. They should expect some fallout to come from making public comments about an issue (whether politics or religion) that is deeply held by people.

I find it amusing when the entertainers spout off whatever mantra is cool for the day and then complain when consumers start talking about boycotting their services (ACTING!) or products (items they endorse as celebrities). You see, somewhere down the line the concept of “free speech” has been confused with the economic concept of supply and demand. If you’re livelihood depends on something and you take actions (whether protected or not) that alienate a portion of that collective ’something’, you’ve got to expect a reduction in demand for your product. Look at it this way… do you see top executives of companies making public statements about politics? NO! Taking it a step further, do you hear business owners making personal attacks or snide comments about politicians or religious figures in public? NO! Why, you ask? Because they know that there are differing viewpoints in the world… a world which comprises their entire customer base… a world which does not care to hear their latest rant about foreign policy or their stance on global warming. They understand that while they too enjoy freedom of speech, the wise move is to shut up when it comes to hot topics. Sure, you say, they are afraid to voice their opinions…. I counter that it is intelligence, not fear that guides them. The entertainment industry for the most part has elevated many of these ‘activists’ to a financial position that boycotts of their goods and services may not completely destroy their way of life, and for that reason they have nothing to lose. But for those who are on their way up, or require continual support from the audience, it might be wise to shut the hell up…. unless of course the cost of their free speech is worth a reduction in lifestyle and livelihood.

The “right to free speech” is not being attacked. Stop the spinning. They have the right to say whatever they want (obviously) and we as the consumers, the people who can put money in their pockets or not, have the choice to stop purchasing their products and services. The beauty of capitalism.

My favorite quote is, “You have no experience doing this, so shut up. You think what I do is so easy, you have no right to say anything about what I do until you’ve spent some time actually doing it.” This was not said by a republican in the current administration defending himself from a Leftist attack…. rather it was a quote from none other than George Clooney in response to a bad review he’d received for directing. Funny Mr. Clooney that it takes such a deep inward evaluation and hands on experience to direct a movie, but running the most powerful country in the world can be accomplished by someone like yourself, without a shred of experience or knowledge. Hypocrisy runs rampant again.

We all have opinions, but if my livelihood depended on the public, I’d try a little harder not to alienate an entire group.

This is not about freedom of speech, it’s about business. Supply and demand.

The only difference is this time next year, she might not have a world stage on which to spew her idiocy, she’ll be relegated back to a local bar or street corner… but her free speech rights will remain fully intact.