Saturday, October 30, 2004
posted by Joel at 6:54 PM
A letter to Andrew M. Sullivan
I rarely read your site anymore, as I find it either gravely ignorant, or purposely disingenuous, I cannot read your mind so I cannot
make a definitive judgment. Either way, you are not someone I care to read.
I have however read your criticism replying to Lileks criticism and then the later post asking Bush supporters to tell you why Kerry
would not fight the war on terror...'you are listening'.
He said he would not. He said that he would take strong swift action if America were attacked. That is not fighting, that is retaliation.
He said that he would use diplomacy to convince our allies to share the burden. George Bush has already done this. Our allies are
helping us, while it is shocking and disappointing that Canada, Mexico, France, Germany, Russia, China etc. did not wish to ally with us
against the war on terror. It was not due to a diplomatic failure or a failure to show the need.
It is a global political posturing based on a milieu of reasons from France and Russia's financial dealings (weapons and oil), to the
fact that the whole situation is not China's problem, and aids some of their agenda items.
Therefore, if Kerry cannot convince allies to share the burden, will he continue to carry it? Will he window dress the situation by
bringing in the U.N.? Will the U.N. put meaningful troops on the frontline, on any line? Or will our soldiers just have to wear blue berets
instead of desert camo?
Can you name for me any potential members of Kerry's administration? The names I have seen bandied about are all either senate Democrats
or ex-Clinton administration members all of which except for Sandy Berger, I have only heard in this week, one week before the vote. And
Sandy Berger is under investigation for stealing documents from the Nation Archives.
So this group of potential cabinet members is going to conduct a war better than our current administration? A war they would not
conduct after the first attack on the world trade center, after the attack on the Khobar Towers, after an attack on the USS Cole?
Are they going to play for real now, because Osama declaring war on America is more serious now than when he did it twice in the 90's?
Kerry has a proven record in his anti-Vietnam war stance, and his actions since being elected Senator in 1984, of choosing the wrong path
to lead down. He encouraged the pull out from Vietnam, and the cut off of funds to help South Vietnam defend itself with our money. He was
for the nuclear freeze. He was against aiding the freedom fighters in Nicaragua. He was against all of Reagan's foreign policy positions.
And this is the root of the problem with voting for Kerry for President. For every statement I quote, for every position of his that I
refer to, you will answer with an opposing statement or position. You will point to what you WANT TO BELIEVE, not what is probable to
I know very few things in this Presidential Campaign, but one thing I do know is that Bush will fight, Bush will stay and get the job
done, and when avoidable mistakes are made, like Abu Gharib, Bush will apologize, like he did on Arabic TV, and correct the problem. Bush
didn’t say this war would be easy, he said it would be hard and difficult and probably long, he never promised troop reduction within a
year, he said we would be at it until it got done. It is utterly maddening to see you and O'Reilly and any number of others characterize
this war as going badly.
This war is going as any war goes, it is war. We have an exit strategy, when Iraq can stand on its own two feet as a free democracy, of
which type they will choose, then we will leave them to prosper or flounder on their own.
Kerry only promises us that he will make Iraq good again, with his "secret plan". Iraq was never good, when we started for Bahgdad, I
prayed that no WMD's would be used against our troops, as they got to the major cities, I prayed that street fighting wouldn't kill 10's of
thousands of our troops as I was led to expect from our glorious media. This war is going exceedingly well (as wars go) by all measures but one, the
media's and the democrats portrayal of it. Look at poll results from Iraq, we are winning the hearts and minds, don't trust polls? Go look
at how many recruits the security and police forces are signing up. Look at the media outlets that are growing, everyone one of these
people are either personally or generally being threated with death by the terrorists. yet still they come to build thier nation into a
modern democratic state, free of tyranny.
Kerry will do what he sees is politically expedient. This is his nature. Bush has shown that he will do what he must to secure America
against terrorism, he could still be dancing with the UN diplomats over Saddam, but he choose the much more politically risky course, that
gives us the best chance at security, with the most control over the proceedings.