Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Letters on Veto Bush column: and some comments

Ted C. Yadlowsky writes in an email:

"Four years ago, President Bush stood on the deck of an American battleship and
declared that the invasion of Iraq had achieved it's goals."

You may want to do a little more homework. It was a Carrier he stood on not a Battleship. But I am sure you have no clue what the difference's are.

You're right. I served during the Vietnam War in the US Air Force at an F-111 base and never saw a battleship or an aircraft carrier.

I tried to read through the rest of your oped but it was clear you had no clue what you are talking about and you just hate Bush and Republicans.

I do dislike Bush because he is a coward who avoided service during the Vietnam War, but I only hate Republicans who are not smart. Otherwise, I'm married to one and she thinks Bush is a liar, too!

You completely gloss over the fact that more people world wide were convinced of the fact that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction than they are that humans are causing Global Warming.

Well, we know that is not true, don't we?

Could we afford to take a chance with Saddam possibly having WMD and the ability to use them post 9/11?

Yes, we could because he had known. But more importantly -- and try to get
this throughy our thick skull -- Saddam Hussein had NOTHING TO DO WITH Sept. 11.

Saddam was given several chances to comply with the UN. He didn't. What you still have a hard time understanding was it was Mission Accomplished.

Mission accomplished. What a joke!

The mission to invade and secure Iraq with coalition forces and to take out most if not all of Saddam's conventional military was done. The new mission is to rebuild this country, just as we have done in the past with Germany, Japan, Korea...

I guess we have not lost an additional 3,000 soldiers since the war "ended?"

You fail to mention the fact Bush and his staff have said this is not going to be easy.

Do you mean his inability to be a good president?

Success in Iraq has strategic importance for the US.

What strategic importance did it have? Other than to help line Halliburton's pockets deeper and faster than another Bush pal Enron lined their own pockets?

But again you fail to recognize that. It is so easy for you to just hate Bush and blame the US.

It sure is. And boy does it feel good!

The best thing for us to do as a country is to succeed in Iraq. It is what those who have given the ultimate sacrifice would want. You claim this is a useless war. Are we not killing terrorist in Iraq?

No. We are killing many civilians, too. Buit who cares about those civilians as long as they are not ours, right?

Would you rather kill terrorist in your neighborhood or over there in Iraq?

Oh. I can see Osama Bin Laden -- whom you have conveniently forgotten all about -- sitting in his cave on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan pointing to a big map of Orland Park asking, "Okay, who is in charge of this strategic American target?"

The war on Terror is not going to be won with the surrender or death of Bin Ladin.

Obviously, you have bought into the president's lies. What othe roption do you have?

Giving this poor region of the middle east hope and a new way of life by rebuilding it will be a major blow to the terrorist that wish to destroy the west and our way of life.
Oh yea, like you cared about the 10 years we starved thepeople of Iraq to death with the US-imposed embargo, starving 500,000 children to death and 2 million adults. Nice strategy, pal. You a Republkican precinct captain? Can I get a garbage can lid?

No comments: