I would print more of these if they were written a bit better. This one was from Kyle. I have to commend Kyle in keeping his letter to the point, which is more than most liberals can handle.
Kyle’s Email: (verbatim)
I agree with you that John Kerry may not be the right man for president, but with the jackass we have running the country now, things can only get better. Not since the Hoover administration has a president lost more jobs for the middle class. He sent American soldiers into Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction….. yeah how many of those weapons did they find. George W. Bush is a LIAR and a COWARD. He was pissed off that Osama Bin Laden slipped one by him with the Sept. 11th attacks, he couldn’t catch Bin Laden so he decided to go after a seventy year old dictator (sadaam) with some made up agenda about nuclear weapons. Now John Kerry might not be great, but I seriously doubt that he would send American soldiers off to fight a battle with another country just because he couldn’t catch an evil dictator. You also have to admit that Bush isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. The security briefing that Condalesa Rice gave him a month before the Sept. 11th attack was titled Bin Laden To Attack Inside US. That is a pretty clear sign that there might be an attack. George W. Bush is a corporate oil tyGOON riding the coat tails of his father. He will soon be out of office quicker than his stint as a national guard deserter.
Kyle, I agree with you on some points of your letter and have to question you on others.
I agree with you that John Kerry may not be the right man for president, but with the jackass we have running the country now, things can only get better. Kyle your right, things can and will get better with George W. Bush. Not since the Hoover administration has a president lost more jobs for the middle class. Uh Kyle, its true that jobs have been lost, but you cannot focus on the negative. Let me put it this way. We were attacked, by not just blood thirsty terrorist, but by terrorist that are smart enough to know that America is run on a capitalist system, in which jobs and the economy is where America prospers. Thus if you attack that very core you shake the foundation of what America is. When the economy heads south, it effects jobs. Now I know what your thinking, its Bush’s fault for the economy. No sir, not in this instance. The major factors that hurt our economy was first and foremost the 9/11 attack, and the corrupt and immoral executives of companies such as Enron, Tyco, and Imclone. But Kyle you also need to look at the positives. 300,000 plus jobs have been created since November 2003, the economy is rising, and home ownership is up.
He sent American soldiers into Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction….. yeah how many of those weapons did they find. Kyle I see you agree with me on this 100%. You start of by saying that Bush sent soldiers into Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Your correct, Saddam did have WMD’s and he used them. We have seen the pictures, we know that he used them against Iran and against his own people. You follow up that comment with “how many of those weapons did they find.” Kyle, do you remember the build up to the war. There was a span of two months from our threats to Saddam to the time we overthrew his dictatorship. I believe we should be looking for them yes, and I do believe they exist, but where is the question in deed. Added to that, these WMD’s are not gigantic weapons such as a scud missile, they are more or less chemical and biological weapons. An ounce of Anthrax can infect up to fifty people with in a close proximity. Because of there size and potential, they can be hid easier than something the size of a Mig fighter or a scud missile. Besides, if Saddam truly did not have WMD’s he is a fool. The US and UN gave him chance upon chance to come clean, and he did not. The US before attacking, offered him the chance to be extradited, no he choose to stay. If I was accused of having WMD’s and did not have them, why would I hold out?
George W. Bush is a LIAR and a COWARD. Ok that’s your opinion. Mr. Bush is not a perfect person, and I do not think he is a liar, however I am not saying that he has not lied. I do know this, he did not deliberately lie to the American People, he was basing his decisions off of the intelligence at the time, which was the same intelligence that Bill Clinton had. Remember in 1998 when shortly after Bill Clinton commit perjury (lying under oath) which would cost him impeachment, he sent tomahawk cruise missiles into Iraq. Stating:
Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of the people through the Middle East and around the world. (CNN:Dec 16, 1998)
Its interesting that you call Mr. Bush a liar when yet someone who committed perjury, and had his law license revoked, who also said Iraq had “nuclear, chemical and biological weapons” you over look that fact. Your coward comment has no justification and no pull whatsoever. George W. Bush went to war with Iraq for the correct reasons, and he has taken the risk of losing his president seat for second term, for doing what was morally correct. That is not the characteristic of a coward, it is a chrematistic of a true leader, a man with a core. A coward is someone who would say one thing, and when the test comes say another thing.
He was pissed off that Osama Bin Laden slipped one by him with the Sept. 11th attacks, he couldn’t catch Bin Laden so he decided to go after a seventy year old dictator (sadaam) with some made up agenda about nuclear weapons. Kyle do you seriously think that he decided to go after Saddam because he could not catch Bin Laden? Maybe he would not have had to go after Saddam, or wait, scratch that, 9/11 would not have happened if the Clinton Administration would have taken action instead of appeasement towards acts of terror. Under Clinton’s watch, terrorist struck the following:
1993: the World Trade Center
1995: an US Army training center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
1996: Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
1998: US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
2000: the USS Cole
Added to that the Sudanese offered Osama Bin Laden to Bill Clinton on four separate occasions on a silver platter, Bill Clinton passed it up because he could not find a “legal” reason for it. I must also remind you that if Bush made up an agenda about “nuclear weapons” why would Bill Clinton bomb Iraq to target Iraq’s “Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons” five years earlier. Did Clinton have an agenda too? If you accuse Bush of going to finish his Dad’s war fine, but I would say that Clinton had an agenda of shifting attention away from his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
Now John Kerry might not be great, but I seriously doubt that he would send American soldiers off to fight a battle with another country just because he couldn’t catch an evil dictator. Kyle again, your 100% correct, in your first statement but you changed your view at the end of your sentence. First, John Kerry would not go to war over anything, he would bow at the alter of the United Nations, because he does not understand that evil exist and believes that you can appease evil by not bugging them. However in the last part of your sentence you said that “he couldn’t catch and evil dictator” Thank you! You have made my case. Saddam was an evil dictator, and you acknowledged that.
You also have to admit that Bush isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. Your absolutely correct, he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. And I do not agree with his social politics. I do not agree with his growth of government, I do not agree with the prescription bill, I do not agree with no child left behind, I do not agree with some other policies that would seem to enlarge the size of our federal government. However, I do support him because he is a man of moral clarity, and believes in what he did. I don’t care how dumb or smart a person is, but they are not worth two grains of salt if they do not believe in what they do.
The security briefing that Condalezza Rice gave him a month before the Sept. 11th attack was titled Bin Laden To Attack Inside US. That is a pretty clear sign that there might be an attack. It’s pretty vague to me. Condoleezza Rice did give him a Presidential Daily Briefing, that was titled Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US. The only point I can argue here is that, what would have happened if Sandy Berger would have given Bill Clinton a similar notice in April of 1998 to warn him about the US embassy attacks. Do you think that he could have figured out something to do to keep that from happening? Possibly but we will never know.
George W. Bush is a corporate oil tyGOON riding the coat tails of his father. Yea he is, but who cares. John Kerry is riding on the trails of his so called wife Teresa Heinz-Kerry. Ted Kennedy has been riding from his family’s wealth that they have had since the mid twenties Who cares if he is a corporate oil tycoon? Who cares if John Kerry gets millions from the Heinz Corporation thru stocks. Does it matter?
He will soon be out of office quicker than his stint as a national guard deserter. Yes he may be out of office this year but considering who he is up against, I predict another 1984 my friend. You also seem to have forgotten that main stream Democrats made this same actuation earlier this year and were shut down immediately when the Bush campaign released all military records including dental records of the then 1st Lt. Had he have actually gone AWOL, he would not have kept his rank, and he would have been dishonorably discharged.
Thanks again for the letter Kyle, and let this be a lesson to those who send mail and do not see it here, if you want it printed, tame it up a bit.