An Open Letter to Senator Hollings
Iï¿½m responding to your editorial comments on May 19th. I find it very unprofessional for you to take your cause to the media in a unilateral dissertation, instead of debating in open public where your slander can be rebutted.
Letï¿½s examine your diatribe, piece by pieceï¿½.
With 760 dead in Iraq and more than 3,000 maimed for life, folks continue to argue over why we are in Iraq ï¿½ and how to get out.
Now everyone knows what was not the cause of this war. Even President Bush acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Listing the 45 countries where al Qaeda was operating on Sept. 11 (70 cells in the United States), the State Department did not list Iraq.
Why is it the Left is so quick to use State Department documentation when they think it suits their cause, but somehow overlooks or summarily dismisses documents from the State Department that state Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, or that their incomplete declarations of WMDs to the U.N. constituted a ï¿½material breachï¿½ or the claims by the Clinton admin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Secretary of State Albright and more about the threat Saddam and Iraq posed to the U.S… I doubt itï¿½s a coincidence.
Then you go on to quote Richard Clarkeï¿½
Richard Clarke, in Against All Enemies, tells how the United States had not received any threat of terrorism for 10 years from Saddam at the time of our invasion.
Since youï¿½re fond of Richard Clarke, I wonder what you think of this quote, in 1999:
Clarke did provide new information in defense of Clinton’s decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for bin Laden’s role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings.
While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is “sure” that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.
Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa’s current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.
Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president “would have been derelict in his duties if he didn’t blow up the facility.”
Picking and choosing only the quotes you like isnï¿½t a very successful strategy in this day and age of information technology. Editorials seem your best debating ground, as bilateral or multilateral discussions generally bring in those pesky facts you guys hate to deal with.
Just when it appears youï¿½re just reciting the DNC talking points, youï¿½ve come up with a whopper.
With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bushï¿½s policy to secure Israel.
Every president since 1947 has made a futile attempt to help Israel negotiate peace. But no leadership has surfaced among the Palestinians that can make a binding agreement. President Bush realized his chances at negotiation were no better. He came to office imbued with one thought ï¿½ re-election. Bush felt tax cuts would hold his crowd together and spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats.
So Bush is simply catering to the Jews for re-election. Interesting theory. Especially given that he lost the Jewish vote by a margin of 4 to 1 in 2000. Sure a man capable of pulling of the worldï¿½s greatest fabrications (as you Lefties keep ranting) isnï¿½t dumb enough to put all his re-election eggs in that one basket. Or is today one of those ï¿½Bush is dumbï¿½ days? I can never keep your mantra straight, always shifting, changing, flippingï¿½.
You donï¿½t come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq. But George W. Bush, as stated by former Secretary Paul Oï¿½Neill and others, started laying the groundwork to invade Iraq days after inauguration. And, without any Iraq connection to 9/11, within weeks he had the Pentagon outlining a plan to invade Iraq. He was determined.
So why did you vote FOR the bill approving the use of force in Iraq? If youï¿½re so damned certain Bush has conspired to attack Iraq from the beginning, so he could gain some Jewish votes, why in the hell did you vote to authorize the war????
Again, say one thing, do another and then sit back while the real leaders act.
With President Bushï¿½s domino policy in the Mideast gone awry, he keeps shouting ï¿½War on Terror.ï¿½ Terrorism is a method, not a war. We donï¿½t call the Crimean War, with the Charge of the Light Brigade, the Cavalry War. Or World War II the Blitzkrieg War. There is terrorism in Ireland against the Brits. There is terrorism in India and in Pakistan. In the Mideast, terrorism is a separate problem to be defeated by diplomacy and negotiation, not militarily. Here, might does not make right ï¿½ right makes might.
ï¿½War on terrorï¿½ means get them before they get usï¿½again. It appears youï¿½ve gone into some senile fit with this last paragraph as it makes as much sense as the Bohemian Rhapsody. If you seriously think terrorism is something to be dealt with diplomatically, perhaps you can have a nice sit down chat with bin Laden, al-Zarqawi or Saddam himself. Of course, you wonï¿½t be able to use the nice facilities in downtown Manhattan, because the terrorism that isnï¿½t war destroyed them.
Finally, you end with, what you undoubtedly think, is a clever little clauseï¿½
Acting militarily, we have created more terrorism than we have eliminated.
But again, sadly, the facts seem to escape you. As a recent article read:
TERRORISM DOWN: LOWEST NUMBER OF ATTACKS WORLDWIDE SINCE 1969… source
Thanks for playing, Senator Hollings, consider yourself still totally irrelevant.1f4a