But that didn’t happen. We just have to come to terms with the fact that we’re there. And, as far as I’m concerned, the war started on our soil. It should remain overseas as long as possible. It is inevitable it’ll be back on American soil again soon. Intelligence is only so good.

I like to think I have a unique view on the entire Iraq and terrorism thing. When it all kicked off, in 2001, I was a liberal. When we went to Iraq, I didn’t like it. There came a point where I was all for getting our of Iraq.

Then I started reading various documents and websites and came to the realization that we can’t leave and we are indeed doing the right thing by waging war in the middle east.

The point I’m trying to make is, I’ve thought from both sides of center. Left and Right.

The administration should have made it very clear what we were going to war for. I agree. Perhaps there was too much emphasis placed on the WMD’s. The media played a big part in construing what was actually said I think.

Either way, I think Bush should have said we’re going to fight terrorism and to defeat islamofacist ideas that threaten western civilization. Radical changes need to be taken within our own borders to help ensure no American’s suffer a fate similar to that of 9/11. If that means some people’s civil liberties get violated, so be it. It needs to be done.

Sorry for getting a little off-topic. There’s just so much I would do if I were in any sort of official position. There’s so much more that can be done.

That said, I’ve got to object to a couple of your statements…

“Mr. Bush never told her or the American public in general that we’re going to war in Iraq because they have WMD’s”
I disagree. I remember the 2002 State of the Union, where Bush read a grocery list of WMDs that he claimed Saddam was hiding. Cheney later called Iraq an “imminent threat” on Meet the Press. When this whole thing started it was all about WMD, the lack of cooperation with the UN Inspectors, and the violation of UN Resolution 1441.

“We went to war in Iraq because Saddam was providing a great deal of assistance to various terrorist organizations.”
Possibly – but none of those organizations was Al-Qaeda. I’m all for stamping out terrorism, and we’ve got to start somewhere… I’d just rather it be the group who’s actually trying to knock our block off.

“We’re fighting to keep our way of life. We either fight the war there or we fight it on American soil.”
This argument doesn’t fly anymore. The fight was taken to London recently, and one can’t help but think that attacks here in the US are certainly possible (if not probable depending on who you listen to). I see this as yet another rationale for the war that’s gone down the drain. It was a flawed argument to begin with… that’s like saying “We (the US) are defending ourselves over there so we don’t have to defend ourselves here”. That’s ridiculous (since we’re doing both) and based on the premise that they can’t wage war in both places. Now they’ve demonstrated that they can.

“As for the supposed lying about WMD’s. I don’t know that Bush ever specifically said we’re going to Iraq for their WMD’s. That was one of the points for going to Iraq though, along with about 100 others”
The truth is, we’ll never really know if we’ve been lied to or not, so I agree – let’s drop that whole line. But if lies haven’t been told, then there’s certainly a lot of incompetence to address here. 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. We went to Iraq to disarm Saddam only to find out that there were no WMDs. Forget lying… focus on the miscalculation. How many errors are you willing to accept before you start thinking that the Administration is incompetent?

As for the 100 reasons, I think that’s part of the problem. Since our actions have such dire consequences (for our own people and others), I think people would rather 1 or 2 slam-dunk reasons instead of a whole bunch of reasons – none of which on their own are really good enough to go to war. And that’s assuming that all of those reasons are valid – which is a big assumption when we’ve already learned that some weren’t. It’s convenient for Bush & Co. – every time a reason fails or falls into disfavor, another one can take it’s place. But it’s not very reassuring, especially when the cornerstone (WMDs) didn’t pan out.

It’s not all about Bush – he’s only one person. But he is in charge, and his Administration has made some serious, undeniable mistakes. I didn’t want to have to tolerate any more from him, but for now I have no choice. I understand Mrs. Sheehan’s point of view, and I don’t doubt that Bush would have to answer some difficult questions if they were to meet. I wish he’d considered that more strongly before kicking all of this off, because he won’t be able to avoid it forever.

—
Again, thanks for the good conversation. I have to stop slacking and get some work done, but I’ll check in later to see if you responded.

We went to war in Iraq because Saddam was providing a great deal of assistance to various terrorist organizations.

Cindy doesn’t understand that we’re at war with an idea. We’re fighting radical islamic beliefs that seek to destroy everything the West has.

President Bush doesn’t answer her questions because they are questions like “Why did you kill my son?”. Why would the president subject himself to that kind of non-sense?

Anyone with half a brain should know what we’re fighting for. For her to ask why her son died in Iraq is insulting to me. If I were in the armed forces and serving in Iraq, I would be furious.

We’re fighting to keep our way of life. We either fight the war there or we fight it on American soil. It’s that simple. If we simply pick up and leave, they will bring the war directly to us.

As for the supposed lying about WMD’s. I don’t know that Bush ever specifically said we’re going to Iraq for their WMD’s. That was one of the points for going to Iraq though, along with about 100 others (I can’t find the official list right now, I know it’s around that number though).

And, do you think Bush gathered all this intelligence himself? Trust me when I tell you that they don’t just say stuff so they can go to war. There had to be some kind of intelligence behing the WMD statements. Probably the reason for Tenet leaving his position as CIA Director.

I realize that Mrs. Sheehan is a grieving mother. And I sympathize with her for that. What’s she’s doing is wrong though. What she’s doing should be considered treason during a time of war.

Now she wants a straight answer as to why her kid went over there under one set of circumstances (WMD’s/imminent threat) and died under a revolving door of ancilliary circumstances once the wheels fell off the “real” reason we went to Iraq.

This “tool of the left” argument doesn’t really hold water with me. Sure – her angst toward the president jives with a lot of people’s right now (left, right, center, or what-have-you), so of course they’re going to try to capitalize. Does that change the fact that it isn’t really clear why we went to Iraq and why we’re still there?

And why do you see “the left’s” interest in this as reason to write it all off? Here’s a woman with a vested interest in the Iraq War – on one level deeper even than that of GWB – who’s felt her feelings run the gamut from pride to confusion to disgust at the whole endeavour. Now she wants answers, and she wants them from boss. I think that’s admirable.

This is war that we’re talking about here. Lives. Money. Integrity. Relationships with the nations that we share the planet with. Deadly serious stuff. When we go war, don’t you think there should be an honest, plain-as-day, reason for that? Personally, I do – and that’s not what we’ve got here. Instead, our primary reason turned to crap right in front of us and none of the buffet of reasons we’ve been treated to since have really rung true to me (or true at all) as being “Yeah – that’s worth all this”-type reasons.

Sheehan and everybody else is entitled to a straight answer here. The fact that her mission happens to align with “the left’s” (whatever “the left” is) shouldn’t make it automatically dismissable. It’s not patriotic or serving any political party to just go along with this type of thing. We should have answers to these questions. And they should ring true.

Her husband is leaving her. And what’s with the Jewish conspiracy nonsense she’s now babbling about? Tool of the left. Plain and simple. That’s why I loathe her.

She doesn’t come across to me as a grieving mother at all. Just another leftwing moonbat trying to turn our ENTIRE country against Bush.

Mrs. Sheehan, the families of those lost in Iraq, and the american public have every right to demand an explanation and accountability from the man in charge. The fact that we’ve gone this long without one (and that no explanation seems to be forthcoming) tells me that the facts do not stand on the President’s side here.

How you can loathe a grieving mother and not the man that brought this upon her unnecessarily is baffling.

Let me guess, these films are Weapons of Mass Deception and Fahrenheit 9/11. Seen em both. I wasn’t impressed, and I saw Fahreneit 9/11 when I somewhat agreed with it’s message.

Cheers.
klepas