My response to reader Gooch, comnmenting on Vietnam not irrelevant to today (although his post is, not suprisingly, entirely off topic for that entry):
I think you have “indisputable facts” mixed up with assertions, opinions, conjecture, and wild-ass exaggerations.
Your so-called FACTS:
1) I am a Democrat.
If you say so. To prove it to me you’d have to show me your party registration, and even then I wouldn’t put it past you to register as a Democrat to give your pro-Bush propaganda more heft.
2) Saddam Hussein sponsors global terrorism.
Define global. Bush stretched 9/11 to cover all countries that harbored terrorist organizations of global reach. Please site one such group that was harbored by Iraq. Thank you.
3) George Bush removed Saddam with extreme prejudice after an attack on our soil by an Islamic terrorist group.
Putting aside the macho lingo, what is the connection between Saddam, our soil, Islamic extermism, and terror?
3) John Kerry, “our” candidate, can’t make up his mind, and most recently has condemned Bush for protecting our country by attacking terrorism at its roots
No, he has condemned Bush for endangering our country by falling asleep at the wheel in Afghanistan and instead pursuing a politicized foreign policy designed to win seats in Congress and intimidate opposition by branding them as terrorist sympathizers.
Where were the roots of terrorism in Iraq?
And have you seen the CIA map that’s been going around lately showing the countries Al Qaeda was operating in in 2001?
(That “our” gives you away, btw.)
THOSE ARE INDISPUTABLE FACTS.
Writing in all caps doesn’t make you right, fella.
Of the two, I trust Bush to fight terrorism and protect my family.
That’s your call, of course.
Dispute this, if you will:
“Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.” (Kerry, December 16, 2003)
I was for Dean and that was a slam at Dean to win a very tough primary. I am not a child and understand how politics work. Your move.
“Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war.[…] I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war against terrorism” (Kerry, September 20, 2004)
I agree with the above.
“I have always had ONE — ONE position on Iraq.” (Kerry, September 21, 2004)
Kerry supported giving the president the ability to threaten credible use of force in order to push the UN and our allies into supporting a tougher inspection regime that would ensure that Saddam could not develop the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction to our soil (and not merely his “hope” or his weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.
What the hell is this man thinking, and how on earth did we choose him as our candidate? Surely we could have done better.
If you trust Bush why are you concerned that the Democrats didn’t field someone you’d like better? Where’s the problem?
These facts are indefensible, no matter your affiliation. Kerry is a pathetic choice for a candidate in this critical time of war, and we have failed miserably with our choice.
What do you mean “we” Kimosabe?
Fellow Dems, vote for Bush, or don’t vote at all. Don’t disgrace the Democratic party by endorsing a fraud like Kerry. Our ideology must be set aside to protect our national safety and our very families. Think. Please.
Fellow Republicans and Zellocrats, vote for Kerry or don’t vote at all. Don’t disgrace conservative values by supporting a fraud like Bush. Think “peas.”
Cecil’s response is in the comment thread, as is my original version of my own reply.