-->
Search the ArchivesNavigationContact InformationThe Citizen Newspapers For Advertising Information Email us your news! For technical difficulties |
Don’t deny: Whoever says, ‘Get out of Iraq now,’ is in agreement with terroristsTue, 10/17/2006 - 4:05pm
By: Letters to the ...
In response to Mr. Williams’ charge that I was “besmirching the sacrifices of young Democrats,” I was careful in my original letter to say that certain critics of the Bush administration “unwittingly” and “unknowingly” give aid and support to terrorists by their criticisms. I did not impugn their patriotism, although some of them are certainly deserving of that charge. To say that I was condemning all Democrats, including soldiers of past wars (!), is a bit hysterical and, frankly, tiresome. Democrats spend more time complaining about real or imagined criticisms and insults than on debating the merits of an argument. Given the Democratic tendency to view people primarily as victims, this should not be surprising. They have become the party of permanent grievance. But this attitude does little to solve problems and instead is more focused on improving self-esteem while demonizing political opponents. So, back to my original argument, which was that when what you are saying is the same as what the terrorists are saying, you are in agreement with them. This is logically unassailable. When the terrorists say “get out of Iraq” and critics, whether on the right or left, say the same thing, they are in agreement. The reasons behind their statement may be different, but the result is the same. And when that happens, the terrorists are winning. Sorry. That’s just the way it is. But I have a question for Mr. Williams: Why do you think President Bush took us to war in Iraq? You say the official reasoning was contrived and manufactured, failing to mention that one of the reasons given was that Iraq had violated 17 UN resolutions and had to be held responsible for that. Okay, so what is the reason? If you say for “oil” or “Halliburton,” well, you are simply not a serious person and you assume President Bush is a moral monster and evil to the core. If you can make a reasoned argument and base it on real evidence, I will listen. But I have heard few such emanations from Bush’s critics. And what is this fascination with Karl Rove? This is the kind of paranoid raving that makes it hard for me to take seriously a large percentage of Bush’s critics on both sides of the political spectrum. They start throwing around terms like “Neocons” and “Karl Rove” and “Halliburton” and focus more on unprovable conspiracies than on the facts at hand. I do not wish to rehash the argument for going to war. Critics selectively remember what the Bush administration said and did not say leading up to the war (there was never a claim of Saddam and al Qaeda being connected during that period). While I supported the decision at the time, I think in hindsight it may have been the wrong one. I don’t think anyone really anticipated the extent of the enemy’s depravity and his willingness to kill both our soldiers and innocent Iraqis to accomplish their goal of re-taking Iraq. But hindsight is 20/20. In the meantime, it is irresponsible and dangerous to constantly attack our president and attribute to him the basest of motivations for going to war. I guarantee that such statements increase the danger for our troops in Iraq by demonstrating to our enemy that their attacks are weakening our country’s resolve, which in turn encourages them to attack more. Of course, we live in a democracy and so cannot force people to act and speak responsibly. We have already seen how we are willing to endanger our troops and abandon our allies to a common enemy in the case of Vietnam. We may do so again in Iraq as a direct result of the cacophony of ill-considered criticism. And the world will be happy because they like nothing better than to see the U.S. laid low. Since worldwide esteem is your goal, Mr. Williams, perhaps that indeed is the way to go. Trey Hoffman |