September 29, 2003

Stephen, while I don't doubt there are conspiracy theorists out there who think Bush & Cheney knew about September 11 in advance, I suspect that there are far more people who simply — without adhering to a conspiracy theory such as that — just think that America was given the wrong reasons for invading Iraq. It is up to a President to lead, not drag. I think you underestimate the morality of the American people if you assume we wouldn't have approved of an Iraqi invasion for the humanitarian reasons. (Regardless, we were never asked, and failure to do so was a form of tyranny.) And if America had been asked, and disagreed that the humanitarian reasons were sufficient, can you tell me why that matters? It's up to Congress to declare war, not the President. And if Congress fails to do so, then you can indict Congress. But please, no more skirting the Constitution: don't you love America?

There were very good reasons NOT to declare a formal declaration of war

...we weren't warring againstt the nation state of Iraq or Afghanistan but against illegitmate bandit regimes...That's why their flags are the same...

Congress can say what the want now but almost everybody voted for the Iraq Police Action. What did they think it would be a picnic?

Better there than here...international terrorism IS MUCH MORE VULNERABLE WITH the US military like a fist in the heart of the middle east. The Syrians must be very worried and the Palestinaisn too not to mention the Iranians.

Col. Gadaffi is the smart one...lays low, plays trick track, drinks coffee, enjoys the fleshpots of Tripoli and guzzles Libya's fossil water...apre moi le Sahara....He is smart enough not to vacation in Lockerby or South Glasgow (he would never get out of South Glasgow alive.....someone would drown him in the Clyde and claim the whiskey and Vodka made him do it... and get off of course...Isn't wimp-liberalism great!!!

Frank,
You sure can dish it out, but have a helluva time taking it--threatening lawsuits for being libeled!!? How brave of you! As for loving America: if I were you I wouldn't push that point. I know it was a rhetorical flourish, but in the real world, you're addressing that question to a physician who devoted 2 years of his life to our country in a time of war. I'm sure you wouldn't have approved of the Vietnam war but some of us took care of the wounded and dying and resent--on their behalf--the feigned and unearned patriotism of the ungrateful beneficiaries of their sacrifice.

Stephen, then perhaps I should ask: what do you love about America?

Among many other things, I love that we're a country in which people with views like yours have the freedom to express them--misguided, wrongheaded and self indulgent- as I think they are, and there are young people willing to fight and die to protect your right to express those views.

And me too, vice versa. But I also love how our breakway country was founded on ideals of truth and justice. In the past, you've indicated you don't have a problem with politicians who lie for what they see as a gretaer good (and quoted Churchill to that effect). This is clearly an area where you and I disagree.

If Churchill and Roosevelt lied us into war, then the only right and honorable thing is to re-install the Nazis and apologize for goading the Empire into attacking Pearl Harbor. Why we ALWAYS have to be so wrong, I cannot fathom. But surely, as a careful re-examination of the facts reveals, it is so.

If you need to lie in order to persuade your country to pursue the "greater good," then maybe it's not really the greater good. Or you need to switch countries...