My Note To Bush

[rick]

Sent to [e-mail] on October 31, 2006:

President Bush:

As I have written to you during the Israeli war a few months ago where I was extremely disappointed with your decision not to allow Israel to take it to the Hezbo's, known terrorists who could have been completely wiped out if you would not have caved to public opinion, I am writing to tell you that I have lost all confidence in you and the republican party. You only vetoed one bill and the republocrats allowed spending to increase. This is not what I expected of someone who claims to be a conservative.

So me and my family are staying home on November 7. Perhaps republicans take us for granted and they need a walk in the wilderness for another 40 years before they wake up and decide to act on principle, not on public opinion or on the basis of doing what they think they should do to get reelected. Throw all the bums out and sort it out later after our country suffers a disaster from what likely will come with democrats in power. I don't look forward to that but hey, you and the Contract With America guys let us down. So I hope you are proud of destroying any chance we conservatives had to stay in power. Real conservatives do the right thing. And when a real conservative tells me that he going to hunt down terrorists and the states that sponsor terrorists, I expect him to keep his word. You did not. You caved. The country is now divided more than ever for your moral cowardice. And the landslide that is coming in a week - hopefully- will shake you and your cronies out of a serious state of denial. But it will be too late then and your ineffectiveness will multiply exponentially. A real set up for getting Hillary elected. How frightening that will be.

Thanks a lot for being a politician rather than a man of principle.

Sincerely,

Rick Miller

[valpotentate]

It is a shame that your anger and disappointment led you and your family to boycott the ballot. I am glad many Americans did not take that stance and made this one of the higher turnouts for a midterm election in recent history.

Now, you won't find me sticking up for Bush very often, but I have to admit he made the only move possible with regards to Israel and Hezbollah. If you do some research into the finer points of that conflict, you will soon see the following:

1) Hezbollah is so entrenched in Lebanon that there is literally no way to dispel them save extended urban warfare.

2) That urban warfare would mean a great deal of innocent civilian deaths. Those deaths in turn would serve as a fantastic tool for any bloodthirsty Islamic rulers in the region looking for a reason to turn on Israel.

3) Any retaliation on Israel provoked by a bloody civilian war that we allowed would necessitate our intervention in the region, etc., etc.

But perhaps the greatest reason for restraint in that conflict was this:

4) Israel did not want to fully attack Hezbollah. The prospect of an all-out war in a city prepared for defense since 2000 scared them senseless. The short of it was, Israel was not sure that it could defeat Hezbollah.

Once again, things aren't always black and white. I would be interested in your response to my thread on the Iraq war.

[rick]

It is a shame that your anger and disappointment led you and your family to boycott the ballot. I am glad many Americans did not take that stance and made this one of the higher turnouts for a midterm election in recent history.

It's not a shame that I am disappointed. I feel relieved that the republicans got their butt kicked. We lost because we don't stand up for what we believe. If the so-called conservative republicans would have curbed spending and if Bush would have helped Israel rather than trying to stop Israel, we could have defeated known terrorists because we would have had them surrounded. Yes lives would have been lost in a nasty guerrilla war but that's the price you pay for freedom. We did the right thing in Japan and in Germany. We could have done the right thing if we had a real conservative leader, not a poser like Bush. I disagree with you that Israel did not want to win that war. If you would have been reading, as I was, the Jerusalem Post and other Jewish papers, you would have realized that about 80% of the population in Israel thought the war should have continued until there was a clear victory. The liberal party in charge in Israel is in deep trouble and most of the population can't wait to get a new, less corrupt government there - a leader that does what is necessary to win the war despite all of the clamor around the world saying just the opposite. Most of the rest of the world is Anti-Semitic while Europe and the UN are the leading culprits. Victory is always black or white. You either win or you lose. Israel's liberal leadership supported by a spineless U.S. chose defeat. And that's part of the reason Bush is unpopular around the world. He does not do what he says he will do or he applies a double standard to Israel. It's ok for us to go after terrorists but Israel must show restraint. Hogwash. Israel needs a leader like Bibi to complete the job in Lebanon. Because this "cease-fire" is a joke and the enemy is only going to be emboldened as they regroup, rearm, and live to fight another day as they terrorize (aka deliberately kill innocents) Israel again.

And please stop this "if you look at the finer points" crap. That's so typically condescending of a liberal. I am very informed of what happened in Lebanon.

[valporun]

I know you're going to look at me as the liberal who won't shut up, but as many media sources stated in the last few days, this really is the American people showing discontent with the way the Bush Administration had led and how they are dissatisfied with the war on Iraq (yes, it has become a "war on Iraq"), how he has tried to privatize our country with his corporate corruption dealings and that we want better examples of seeing economic reform and regrowth in a sufficient time so as the American people can live comfortably on liveable wages for everyone to get above the poverty line.

I think the Rumsfeld resgination was coming, but the consequence was due to the Republicans not having full control of government, and this is the American people speaking in a vastly marginally higer turnout rate for a mid-term election in the 25 years I've been alive or the 7 years I've really paid attention in my voting practices. He did need to go at somepoint before the next two years were up, and the way the American people spoke showed that he was unfit to continue in his postion as the Secretary of Defense. Sure he could be a lobbyist for Defense, but I don't think he has the muster to lead anymore and the people of this country have told him and Presidetn Bush that he isn't as effective as they both think he was.

[rick]

I know you're going to look at me as the liberal who won't shut up, but as many media sources stated in the last few days, this really is the American people showing discontent with the way the Bush Administration had led and how they are dissatisfied with the war on Iraq (yes, it has become a "war on Iraq"), how he has tried to privatize our country with his corporate corruption dealings and that we want better examples of seeing economic reform and regrowth in a sufficient time so as the American people can live comfortably on liveable wages for everyone to get above the poverty line.

I think the Rumsfeld resgination was coming, but the consequence was due to the Republicans not having full control of government, and this is the American people speaking in a vastly marginally higer turnout rate for a mid-term election in the 25 years I've been alive or the 7 years I've really paid attention in my voting practices. He did need to go at somepoint before the next two years were up, and the way the American people spoke showed that he was unfit to continue in his postion as the Secretary of Defense. Sure he could be a lobbyist for Defense, but I don't think he has the muster to lead anymore and the people of this country have told him and Presidetn Bush that he isn't as effective as they both think he was.

I don't think he has or has had the capacity to lead because he is trying too much to be liked and to get liberals to think he is a good guy. And he is not a man of principle. He has no core beliefs. He is no conservative, but a wishy-washy republican. The responsibility for republicans losing the election rests with the leader of the republican party. Bush is the leader. He is inarticulate and stubborn. There is a difference between stubborn (not willing to listen to anyone when you can and should do so) and acting on principle (knowing the right thing to do and doing it regardless of what others tell you). Mr. Bush, sadly, exemplifies the former.

He should resign for the good of the party. And so should Cheney. Then we can all be comforted knowing that Nancy Pelosi will be at the helm.

As for the war on Iraq, we have not fought it the way a war should be fought. I have mentioned this already in another post that AlSadr should have been killed when we had the chance during the early period of the war in Iraq. Now he is killing American soldiers because he is still alive. We should have more troops to annihilate the enemy. You don't fight a politically-correct war which inevitably leads to losing. We did that in Vietnam and we are doing that in Iraq. Using overwhelming force once you get into a war and making it clear to the world that you won't stop using such force either until the enemy surrenders or they die is the most effective way to reach victory. If we would have done that from the get-go, we would be out of Iraq by now. Our leadership during WW2 made that perfectly clear with Japan, who at first thought we were kidding and did not have the resolve to win. We had to show them we were dead serious about victory. When we finally did make the right decision to show our resolve by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they surrendered when they vowed before never to do so. Now that's the kind of leadership it takes to fight a war and it doesn't look like either party has what it takes in this era of political correctness - the same PC that caused Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.

If we would have fought a merciless war in Iraq and allowed Israel to do the same in Lebanon, people all over the world would be cheering on the victory over evil and would respect us. Instead, we let them live to fight another day to kill innocent men, women and children. The Arab world respects strength and considers any kind of withdrawal weakness. It emboldens them and the radicals who wish to murder as many Americans as they can get away with. And now that they are likely(eventually) to get nuclear capabilities from Iran and North Korea, our country is at the same risk the invincible Rome was when the barbarians were knocking at the gates. Our very civilization and culture is at risk. And allowing the enemy to claim victory (small as it is) is what will eventually do us in. After we have some nukes go off in New York or Chicago or LA, perhaps people will remember what the face of a real enemy like Hitler and radical Islam looks like and perhaps we will start taking this global war on terror seriously. But I don't think, given the results of the election, the American people see the enemy on the horizon and they don't really comprehend just how close he really is to destroying America. Heck, it can't happen to America can it? Nah.

[valpotx]

You can't have everyone above the poverty line, it is simply impossible. Some people feel that they deserve to be handed good jobs, rather than putting in the time/effort to go to college. Yes, I understand some people do not have the money to go to college, but that is why you take out loans, to better your children's future. The reason some of us have the lives we do is because our ancestors made a similar sacrifice.

I usually do not get in on political discussions (and I know this hasn't been mentioned anywhere in this thread), but so much happens down here in TX that is odd, that I feel the need to rant as well. We get illegal immigrants in here that expect you to speak Spanish to them, and take offence when you try to speak to them in English initially. This is ridiculous. If I moved to Brazil, I would learn Portuguese. Though building a fence does seem a little off, it appears to be the only way to stop the influx of illegals coming in at the time. I have no issue with immigration, as it is the foundation of our country, and is how both sides of my family got here obviously (legally).

As far as handling the war against terror, the Democrats will handle that much more poorly. I find the politics of today quite ridiculous. Even if the Democrats would have handled the wars similarly, the Republicans would be saying they are not doing their job. There is so much done that is just to win votes, not actually to resolve issues. If politicians spent last time criticizing each other & trying to win votes, more would get accomplished in this country.

[valpotentate]

Well, in my mind it is sad that you made the choice not to vote. No matter what side of the aisle someone is on, it is never a good thing when there is so much disenfranchisement that no participation is the end result.

That said, I think you missed the main points about Israel. Let me try to rephrase them:

1) The Israeli military saw the difficulties in fighting an entrenched Hezbollah in Lebanon. As we are seeing in Iraq, urban warfare is very bloody and almost always a losing proposition. Forget what the population thought, Israel did not see a way they could defeat Hezbollah.

2) Had Israel entered a prolonged battle in Lebanon, they would be targeted there and at home by terrorist factions flooding the borders to join the fray. Imagine an Iraq war right on our border and you begin to get the picture.

At some point there needs to be more of a strategy for war than "see terrorist, kill terrorist". As Iraq is teaching us once again, we are neither killing terrorists nor halting their recruitment in any real way.

[rick]

valpotentate said:

Well, in my mind it is sad that you made the choice not to vote. No matter what side of the aisle someone is on, it is never a good thing when there is so much disenfranchisement that no participation is the end result.

Bull! Not voting sent the message I wanted to send. And there were NO, I repeat NO better alternatives.

We will just have to agree to disagree about Lebanon. I understand only one thing when it comes to war. Once we make a decision to go to war, we win, period! And do it with massive, continuous, never-ending force until the job is done. That is what should have been done both in Iraq and Lebanon and if it had been done, the world would be a little safer now than it is. You don't talk to those who declare war (9/11) until they are dead or they surrender and are brought to justice. What is there to talk about? We lost 3,000. They want to kill even more. They are willing to die to kill more innocent people. Campfires and singing Kumbaya with the enemy is pointless. And so is negotiating with them.

[valpotentate]

valpotx said:

You can't have everyone above the poverty line, it is simply impossible. Some people feel that they deserve to be handed good jobs, rather than putting in the time/effort to go to college. Yes, I understand some people do not have the money to go to college, but that is why you take out loans, to better your children's future. The reason some of us have the lives we do is because our ancestors made a similar sacrifice.

I usually do not get in on political discussions (and I know this hasn't been mentioned anywhere in this thread), but so much happens down here in TX that is odd, that I feel the need to rant as well. We get illegal immigrants in here that expect you to speak Spanish to them, and take offence when you try to speak to them in English initially. This is ridiculous. If I moved to Brazil, I would learn Portuguese. Though building a fence does seem a little off, it appears to be the only way to stop the influx of illegals coming in at the time. I have no issue with immigration, as it is the foundation of our country, and is how both sides of my family got here obviously (legally).

I don't know of anyone who is looking to bring everyone above the poverty line. The key is an attempt to lessen the gap between those far below it and those far above it. Historically, when the top percentage moves farther from the bottom percentage, the middle gets stretched.

Now, your argument on good jobs really hits a nerve with me as I'm so interested in this issue myself. Now, I agree with your assertion that good jobs today largely require a college degree. However, we certainly must be alert to two issues:
1) College costs are rising quickly. The average cost of a private college just hit $30k for the first time.
2) More and more students are falling farther into debt as these costs rise and their ability to pay the bill lessens.
3) As more and more people receive degrees the average pay you can expect with a degree is also falling.

So, college costs more, students are falling into more debt with loans, and then making less money when they graduate. Certainly we must address this trend at some point.

[valpotentate]

rick said:

valpotentate said:

Well, in my mind it is sad that you made the choice not to vote. No matter what side of the aisle someone is on, it is never a good thing when there is so much disenfranchisement that no participation is the end result.

Bull! Not voting sent the message I wanted to send. And there were NO, I repeat NO better alternatives.

That's the point. It's a shame that you feel that your best alternative was not voting at all.

As for the way wars should be fought, are you advocating we use nuclear weapons? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.

[rick]

valpotentate said:

rick said:

valpotentate said:

Well, in my mind it is sad that you made the choice not to vote. No matter what side of the aisle someone is on, it is never a good thing when there is so much disenfranchisement that no participation is the end result.

Bull! Not voting sent the message I wanted to send. And there were NO, I repeat NO better alternatives.

That's the point. It's a shame that you feel that your best alternative was not voting at all.

As for the way wars should be fought, are you advocating we use nuclear weapons? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.

No, not nuclear weapons. Just good old fashioned warfare.

Not voting is a deliberate act intended to send a message. Hopefully, anyone wishing to run for office as a true conservative will learn the lesson. Oh, if John McCain, as I read in the Washington Times today, will be the beneficiary of this election come 08, I'm sending another message and staying home. I don't like fake conservatives like him and never will. And don't say, "well he was a war hero and a prisoner of war and served his country. What's not to like about him?" Hey, the DC sniper and Timothy McVeigh served their country too. I'm more concerned about conservative principles than I am about whether someone got his leg shot off in a war or is a wounded veteran. Yes, I'm completely satisfied that I did not vote. And yes, despite the urging of Rush Limbaugh and a lot of other conservative writers who tried to persuade conservatives to vote, I did what I thought was best, in the long run, for my family and this country. Somtimes bad things have to happen before good things can.

[valporun]

Rick, I will respect your decision not to vote because you did not see any candidate that showed the same conservative values as you believe. I'm also going to respect the intention because you could have voted for change on the center of "protest vote". I had that same lingering feeling yesterday in voting for Blagojevich or Rich Whitney of the Green Party. I do want to see change in Illinois, but I didn't totally agree with what Whitney was thinking. Some of this may be because I'm from a city in Northern Illinois and not a traditional farming community in Southern Illinois. I still voted because I have my right to vote, and I hope for change still. I hate to admit it, but I have a feeling Illinois will never strive to get out of the corrupt ways of the politics this state has had for the last 20+ years.

[Valpower]

rick said:

As I have written to you during the Israeli war a few months ago where I was extremely disappointed with your decision not to allow Israel to take it to the Hezbo's, known terrorists who could have been completely wiped out if you would not have caved to public opinion,

How dare you listen to the people!

rick said:

If you would have been reading, as I was, the Jerusalem Post and other Jewish papers, you would have realized that about 80% of the population in Israel thought the war should have continued until there was a clear victory.

Listen to the people, damn it!

[rick]

valpower said:

rick said:

As I have written to you during the Israeli war a few months ago where I was extremely disappointed with your decision not to allow Israel to take it to the Hezbo's, known terrorists who could have been completely wiped out if you would not have caved to public opinion,

How dare you listen to the people!

rick said:

If you would have been reading, as I was, the Jerusalem Post and other Jewish papers, you would have realized that about 80% of the population in Israel thought the war should have continued until there was a clear victory.

Listen to the people, damn it!

Ha ha. Aren't you clever.
Hey, coming from the lover of the guy who said "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is" you don't have much room to criticize. You obviously don't know the difference between stubbornness and principle.

And even if I was talking out of both sides of my mouth, in the interest of equal time with the Democrats, I should be allowed a few subtle nuances of language of my own.

[rick]

valporun said:

Rick, I will respect your decision not to vote because you did not see any candidate that showed the same conservative values as you believe. I'm also going to respect the intention because you could have voted for change on the center of "protest vote". I had that same lingering feeling yesterday in voting for Blagojevich or Rich Whitney of the Green Party. I do want to see change in Illinois, but I didn't totally agree with what Whitney was thinking. Some of this may be because I'm from a city in Northern Illinois and not a traditional farming community in Southern Illinois. I still voted because I have my right to vote, and I hope for change still. I hate to admit it, but I have a feeling Illinois will never strive to get out of the corrupt ways of the politics this state has had for the last 20+ years.

Don't worry about not voting in Illinois. In Chicago, there are thousands of dead people (over 90% democrats) who vote that will more than make up for your non-vote.