In my response to Allen’s attack on one of his commentors Allen responded to me via his comments section where I also posted my response he wrote:
Any long time reader of my blog will note I have tackled Democrats as well as Republicans. Politics, Politicians, And Principles.
On issues of ethics and political process you will note I am tough on each side and challenge them all to do better for the people they represent.Since Bush and Company are the ones who perpetrated the misconceptions and fostered the lies that led our nation to war they should face justice. The person who ran for President and swore an oath to the nation should be held accountable.
My readers know what I meant when I wrote: What Would Jeb Bartlett Do?
You will be glad to know I support Bush on immigration and the Dubai port deal. I think he was correct on each issue and you will find strong examples of my support for him in my columns. I have approved of Senator Graham often. If he is ‘outed’ for his sexuality I will have words about that too.
I wrote the following in a post that sums up my feelings on public service, which also would apply to Bush.
Hours before this news broke I had written a quick note to a young friend who is trying to get a job in the Statehouse. Knowing how difficult and frustrating it can be, I wanted him to know the hard work was worth the time, and mental investment. I closed my note to him with the following about how he should conduct himself once employed under the dome. At the time it was just for him, but following the news tonight it applies to every person who enters into that magnificent building and prepares to work on behalf of the public.
…in your job make each day count, and affect change in every way possible; honoring the public’s trust in every action you take….
I replied:
Allen thanks for commenting but I really don’t see an answer to the question above, instead you spout out old and tired lines about how ‘Bush lied and now people died,’ instead of getting stuck with your head in the sand because of your obvious contempt for President Bush why don’t you actually read the reports that have been given, by the Bi-Partisan Committees. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence did find that the intelligence was flawed, the stock piles of WMDs just weren’t found, you BDS sufferers stop right there and fail to read further to see that even though stockpiles were not found the resources and documentation found by the Iraqi Survey Groups did indicate that Saddam had temporarily suspended his production of WMDs and or transferred them to another country, Syria is the most logical assumption.
The fact that Saddam had WMDs can not be lied about or ignored, he used them on his own people and he continually threatened to use them again. What part of that truth is so hard for you to grasp?
As late as January of 2003 the Telegraph was reporting that “United Nations weapons inspectors have uncovered evidence that proves Saddam Hussein is trying to develop an arsenal of nuclear weapons, The Telegraph can reveal. The discovery was made following spot checks last week on the homes of two Iraqi nuclear physicists in Baghdad.”
How then can you say that his possession of and desire to obtain WMDs was not true, even Joe Wilson in his official report indicated that the British Intel report linking Iraq to purchasing Yellow Cake was true, the fact that he later changed his story for the press does disguise this fact. And before you go there: let me remind you that 2 years and millions of tax-payer money spent by Mr. Fitzgerald have resulted in not one conviction or indictment for the outing of a CIA operative, quite frankly because Joe Wilson and his wife ‘outed’ themselves long before that. Scooter Libby’s sole indictment is not for violating federal law on the disclosure of under cover operatives; it was for not remembering the actual timing and conversation between him and a journalist.
The fact that you agree with Bush on two policies does not make you a balanced reporter, in point of fact one of the two policies you support him on is opposed by the majority of his ardent supporters, that being his plan to grant Amnesty to the estimated 20 million illegal aliens currently operating in this country.
And yes while many on both sides of the aisle hammered Bush on the Dubai Port Deal, I still do not see them complaining that the same company is performing the same functions at US Naval bases around the world. The decision while it may be right for the security of the country was a xenophobic reaction that was made to placate the masses. You seem to have fallen for it.
Since according to the Constitution of the United States article 1 Section 8, Congress has the power “To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;” when are you going to hold those members of your party responsible for authorizing what you so ignorantly call an “illegal war?” President Bush presented to Congress the same information that Bill Clinton presented to Congress when he was authorized to bomb Iraq after the first Gulf War. Furthermore since you claim that our presence in Iraq is completely illegal how then do you resolve the text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546, adopted unanimously June 8, which “endorses the new interim government of Iraq, allows the multinational force to provide security in partnership with the new government, sets out a leading role for the U.N. in helping the political process over the next year, and calls upon the international community to aid Iraq in its transition:
Recognizing the request conveyed in the letter of 5 June 2004 from the Prime Minister of the Interim Government of Iraq to the President of the Council, which is annexed to this resolution, to retain the presence of the multinational force,
Recognizing also the importance of the consent of the sovereign Government of Iraq for the presence of the multinational force and of close coordination between the multinational force and that government,
Welcoming the willingness of the multinational force to continue efforts to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in support of the political transition, especially for upcoming elections, and to provide security for the United Nations presence in Iraq, as described in the letter of 5 June 2004 from the United States Secretary of State to the President of the Council, which is annexed to this resolution.”
Allen your arguments are not based upon fact but rather feelings, feelings that everything that has been done since November 2000 has been done illegally and it is these feelings that guide you and send you down the wrong path. If you are to condemn George Bush for what is happening now then you must also condemn every administration prior to his as far back as 1969.
Appeasement in the hopes of security put us in this position and in my opinion; George Bush is finally saying enough is enough appeasement can no longer be our foreign policy standard we must stop this and if not now when?
Note: Allen has now enabled comment moderation and as such I will need to wait to see if my reply to him will be posted.
UPDATE: Allen has already responded to my comments, I salute him! I still completely disagree with him, but I can't fault him for attempting to stiffle debate at this point.
No comments:
Post a Comment