I'd post the link, but the paper's web site seems to be down now.
Bush is trying to protect the American people
8/30/2005
During the school year, while attending the liberal New York University, I'm used to hearing baseless, anti-American drivel from my fellow know-it-all college students. But I am consistently appalled at what so-called adults write to our own Buffalo News.
I am aware that they have a First Amendment right to free speech. But on behalf of everyone who isn't cast into a deep depression every time the United States protects itself, I would like to send a message to all those screeching for Bush's impeachment: Grow up. Guess what? The country is not run by fascists, and Vice President Cheney is not going to steal into your home, kidnap your children and send them to Iraq.
If you're going to criticize the work of a duly elected representative of the American people, at least have the decency and the presence of mind to offer an alternative plan of action, rather than just taking self-righteous cheap shots.
James F. Cornwell
Williamsville
My response:
In regards to James F. Cornwell's letter of Aug 30: If Mr Bush wished to protect the America, he would have only attacked those who posed a threat – al Qaeda and their sponsors in Saudi Arabia. He would have enlisted the aid of our best allies - such as France and Germany who have long endured the threat of fundamentalist terrorism. The fact is Mr Bush and his cronies planned on attacking Iraq from the start of his administration, and only needed a reason palatable to ill-informed
Americans and ill-informed media to do so. The attacks of Sept 11 gave him that reason, and Bush has referenced them at every occasion to justify his invasion & continual occupation of Iraq. Even through Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing nothing nothing to do with Sept 11.
Mr Bush is due for criticism because he has simply failed as a President. His actions threaten the security of the United States. He has ignored the advice of, and demoted, fired or dismissed employees of the federal government and military who, with their vast experience and expertise, had warned him repeatedly of the folly of unnecessarily occupying an Islamic country like Iraq. He coddles our enemies and their supporters. He has alienated the very allies we need to fight the fundamentalist terrorists. And in doing so he has had people investigated, arrested & detained without trial or charge - merely for their political views. Smells like fascism to me.
One can wonder why, if he believes in his Glorious Leader's cause, Mr Cornwell isn't in Iraq serving in uniform instead of ensconced in the relative safety of "liberal" New York University? Or if he and the supporters of the war are willing pay the cost of it themselves (now about $30,000 each)? Or if he believes, as some in the right-wing punditry have stated, that his hosts in New York City behaved as cowards on Sept 11 while they were being attacked - and while Mr Bush failed in his duty to protect them - simply because that city is deemed to be too "liberal"?
The simple, moral and honorable solution to Mr Bush's Iraq Quagmire is to withdraw. We should pay reparations to the Iraqi people for committing the crime of invading their country. (This would be much less costly than occupying the country.) Allow them to employ themselves to rebuild their country - without lining the pockets the Republican middlemen in Halliburton and Bechtel.
As Clarence Page reminded us - a critic of the President once said "Victory means having an exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." If this was true when Gov Bush said it about Pres Clinton's policy in a low-level conflict like Bosnia, it is even more applicable about Pres Bush in a full-blown war like Iraq.
Whaddya think?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
