Let’s Not Let This Happen
As you probably saw last night, President Bush apparently thinks he knows more than most of the House and Senate, generals, world leaders, a commission set up to evaluate the war, and millions of American people. Our only hope now is that the Senate and House will reject this disasterous move and vote against troop surges and extra funding suggested by President Bush. Why sacrifice our brave troops for the arrogance of a man who won’t listen to the people he’s supposed to be leading?
I went to the website listed in the letter below, and signed my name. I would encourage you to do the same. After I submitted my name, this letter came up on the screen for me to forward to people. I’m just going to post it here:
Dear Friend,
If you care about changing direction in Iraq, now is the moment to act.
George Bush will speak to the nation tomorrow [OK, it's Thursday now, so last night], and early reports say that he will announce an escalation of the war in Iraq. He wants to spend more of our money and lose more of our loved ones in pursuit of his dangerous fantasies.
But escalation is not President Bush’s decision to make. He must have the people’s consent.
Senator Ted Kennedy is announcing legislation that will prevent any further escalation in Iraq until two important things happen: the president presents a plan for success and Congress approves it.
I’ve already added my name to the list of Americans who demand a voice in the debate over escalation. Will you join me?
http://www.tedkennedy.com/ourdecision
As Speaker Pelosi said on Sunday, “If the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it.”
Thank you!
TheTruth responds:
Posted: January 11th, 2007 at 12:22 pm →
On July 18, 1969, Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick, Martha’s Vineyard, held in honor of six women who had worked on the presidential campaign of his younger brother Robert, who had been assasinated the Summer before in June 1968. Kennedy left with party guest Mary Jo Kopechne as a passenger in his 1967 Oldsmobile Delmonte 88.
Kennedy said he made a wrong turn onto an unlit road that led to Dike Bridge, a dangerous unlit wooden bridge with no guardrail, angled sharply to the road. In the poor visibility, Kennedy drove over the side of the bridge. The car plunged into tide-swept Poucha Pond (at that location a channel) and came to rest upside down underwater. Kennedy was able to swim free of the vehicle, but passenger Kopechne was not.
Kennedy, a strong swimmer, says that he swam down trying to reach her several times, but the strong tidal current prevented him from reaching the submerged vehicle. He finally made his way back to the house where the party had been held. Joseph Gargan (Kennedy’s cousin) and party co-host Paul Markham then returned to the pond with Kennedy to try to rescue Kopechne. Although there was a telephone at the Lawrence Cottage, nobody called for help.
When their efforts to rescue Kopechne failed, Kennedy decided to return to his hotel, however the Edgartown-Chappaquiddick ferry (which connects Chappaquiddick to the rest of the island) had shut down for the night. Kennedy swam across the 500-foot channel, back to Edgartown.
Kennedy spent hours phoning a number of people to discuss the accident, including his lawyer and Kopechne’s parents, before discussing with police 10 hours after the accident. The incident quickly became a scandal.
Kennedy was publicly criticized for allegedly driving drunk (although there was no direct evidence that he was drunk), for failing to save Kopechne, for failing to summon help immediately and for contacting not the police, but rather his lawyer first.
In a closed trial, Kennedy reportedly entered a plea of guilty to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury. He received a suspended sentence of two months in jail, although he did not even have a valid driver’s license at the time.[citation needed
Playtah responds:
Posted: January 11th, 2007 at 12:49 pm →
Ok….that doesn’t mean that ALL the ideas he EVER had in his life are going to be bad or wrong. Laura Bush ran a stop sign and killed a person. Does that mean that her programs for kids are crap? How does this relate at all to his suggestion for the war in Iraq?
TheTruth responds:
Posted: January 11th, 2007 at 1:29 pm →
She wasn’t drunk and cheating on her spouse at the time. And she was 17.
Teddy K is one of the least credible politicians in Washington.
Playtah responds:
Posted: January 11th, 2007 at 1:43 pm →
I don’t see how that affects the validity of his argument at all. Besides, he is definitely not alone in his opinion.
Andy responds:
Posted: January 11th, 2007 at 11:31 pm →
Just checked out Bush’s comments. Does that mean we call an armored Hum-V a Surge Protector now?
And I was so looking forward to seeing those monkeys.
And Truth, Ted Kennedy lost TWO family members to high prfile very public assasinations, and don’t even want to think what that would do to me. I don’t always (in fact I seldom) agree with the man, but to say his arguments are crap because of that is idiotic. Remeber Moses and David and Paul were all murders, and not by accident.
basic theology responds:
Posted: January 12th, 2007 at 1:57 am →
i wrote my name on that list!
alas, i am canadian.
oops! my vote ruins the whole idea. the entire petition officially needs to be redone.
Gracie responds:
Posted: January 12th, 2007 at 8:14 am →
Andy’s right. Kennedy also lost two more siblings to plane crashes, and still another to her own father’s insistence on a lobotomy. And he has eulogized even the next generation, his brothers’ sons.
I can’t begin to imagine what kind of psychic scars he carries within. I don’t always agree with him, either, but it would be foolish to say he has contributed nothing good in all his years of public service. At the moment, I can’t think of much the same I could say about Bush, and this latest plan is just insane.
Gracie responds:
Posted: January 12th, 2007 at 8:24 am →
Hey Wendell, just found this…..you’re gonna love it…
Dear Mr. President,
Thanks for your address to the nation. It’s good to know you still want to talk to us after how we behaved in November.
Listen, can I be frank? Sending in 20,000 more troops just ain’t gonna do the job. That will only bring the troop level back up to what it was last year. And we were losing the war last year! We’ve already had over a million troops serve some time in Iraq since 2003. Another few thousand is simply not enough to find those weapons of mass destruction! Er, I mean… bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice! Um, scratch that. Try this — BRING DEMOCRACY TO THE MIDDLE EAST! YES!!!
You’ve got to show some courage, dude! You’ve got to win this one! C’mon, you got Saddam! You hung ‘im high! I loved watching the video of that — just like the old wild west! The bad guy wore black! The hangmen were as crazy as the hangee! Lynch mobs rule!!!
Look, I have to admit I feel very sorry for the predicament you’re in. As Ricky Bobby said, “If you’re not first, you’re last.” And you being humiliated in front of the whole world does NONE of us Americans any good.
Sir, listen to me. You have to send in MILLIONS of troops to Iraq, not thousands! The only way to lick this thing now is to flood Iraq with millions of us! I know that you’re out of combat-ready soldiers — so you have to look elsewhere! The only way you are going to beat a nation of 27 million — Iraq — is to send in at least 28 million! Here’s how it would work:
The first 27 million Americans go in and kill one Iraqi each. That will quickly take care of any insurgency. The other one million of us will stay and rebuild the country. Simple.
Now, I know you’re saying, where will I find 28 million Americans to go to Iraq? Here are some suggestions:
1. More than 62,000,000 Americans voted for you in the last election (the one that took place a year and half into a war we already knew we were losing). I am confident that at least a third of them would want to put their body where there vote was and sign up to volunteer. I know many of these people and, while we may disagree politically, I know that they don’t believe someone else should have to go and fight their fight for them — while they hide here in America.
2. Start a “Kill an Iraqi” Meet-Up group in cities across the country. I know this idea is so early-21st century, but I once went to a Lou Dobbs Meet-Up and, I swear, some of the best ideas happen after the third mojito. I’m sure you’ll get another five million or so enlistees from this effort.
3. Send over all members of the mainstream media. After all, they were your collaborators in bringing us this war — and many of them are already trained from having been “embedded!” If that doesn’t bring the total to 28 million, then draft all viewers of the FOX News channel.
Mr. Bush, do not give up! Now is not the time to pull your punch! Don’t be a weenie by sending in a few over-tired troops. Get your people behind you and YOU lead them in like a true commander in chief! Leave no conservative behind! Full speed ahead!
We promise to write. Go get ‘em W!
Yours,
Michael Moore
Allison responds:
Posted: January 12th, 2007 at 10:54 am →
We are losing this war against radical Islam because people like you are too uninformed to understand the ramifications. If we retreat now, what will happen in Iraq? How about in Iran, Palestine and Syria?
Also more people were killed by Saddam Hussein in ten years than soldiers in the past 4 years. More people have been killed by drunk drivers in America than soldiers in this war.
Andy responds:
Posted: January 12th, 2007 at 11:06 am →
We’re losing this war because we’re losing the ‘hearts and minds’ of the Iraqi people. torture cruelty, C-130 gunships taking out homes with 30 people in them to kill 1 terrorist. The problem is Bush hass surrounded himself with people who agree with him. He comes up with an idea and all he gets are HUZZAHS and HRUMPHS all around. I’ve been reading on Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War ands he was surrounded with men that did NOT agree with him. He was forced to examine his ideas and policies and to convince those around him of the next step. I ask you “Who did better?”
Playtah responds:
Posted: January 12th, 2007 at 11:38 am →
Andy - Surge Protector. Classic.
Basic Theology - Did you add your name to the list because you supported it, or to sabotage it? I’m not asking that to be argumentative, I’m just curious about your reasoning. And yay that you are Canadian! I used to travel through Canada about once a year. Always a good time. “I got a swack of poutine on my tuque, eh?”
Gracie - LOVE the letter. Michael Moore is the master of sarcasm.
Allison - 3 things:
1. “We are losing this war against radical Islam because people like you…” What kind of people would qualify as “people like me”? Democrats? Liberals? The 70% of Americans who don’t want to send more troops? The 62% of Americans who think war with Iraq was a mistake? The 72% of Americans who don’t agree with how President Bush is handling the war? The 51% of Americans who don’t think that the Iraq war is making America safer in the long run? I fit into all those categories. Please clarify.
2. I never suggested just retreating.
3. Perhaps we could send the drunk drivers over there for free as part of their community service.
Andy - If only Lincoln could come back!!!!
basic theology responds:
Posted: January 12th, 2007 at 1:00 pm →
i was going to go for the ha-ha funny approach, until i read a response which sparked my interest. so, i will speak my peace now, instead of making dry humour about internet petitions.
personally, i think there is a “war” against “radical islam” because most people are too “uninformed” to understand world politics. perhaps too “uninformed” to understand other cultures. “uninformed” to the point where all they can do is fear them. and through fear comes power. strength. power to the man who can herd the frightened sheep. and sorry, not to sound like a rude canadian man, but, unfourtunately, a large portion of the american people are indeed, just herded, frightened sheep. i can’t determine what’s worse. the
“we’re going to treat you like shit because you look different than we do” theory of america throughout the better half of the 20th century, or the “we’re going to treat you like shit because you think differently than we do” theory which took it’s place. hate breeds hate. that being said, perhaps, if we (north america) could stop being barbarians for a second, and going out and mass murdering other human beings everytime we get afraid (i.e. iraq, vietnam, korea, and soon to be somalia), then perhaps the world could be a better place.
lets stop and think about this rationally for a second. lets assume that america wasn’t as much of a bully as she is, and lets say that she was just minding her own business. then, lets say for several years straight, another country.. hmm, lets go with brazil… anyways, lets say brazil bombed the united states constantly over a several year period. brazil would always speak openly against the united states, push it around, tell tall tales of it’s horrible people, and try to convince other people to hate america too.
now, as an american who is constantly getting a bad name in the spotlight, because people don’t understand you, or your culture, and a lot of your friends and family keep dying because of constant bombing, and you’re watching the country you live in fall to shambles around you, because the world puts trade embargos on you for wanting to have “nuclear technology”, i ask you, how hard would it be to convince you to say “fuck brazil” and angrily try to make brazil pay for how it treats you.
now, reverse the situation.
this is all that america does. this is the way it treats not just one nation, but, almost the entire middle east. arab nations, islamic nations. if america doesn’t understand, or agree with the beliefs of these nations, they get to die. their countries get to be set back hundreds of years, their technology gets to be stripped of them. and if america so chooses, their leaders get to be stripped of power, hunted, and then ultimately, executed. tortured, even.
so, bear with me here, but, can you at least somewhat identify why there is a “radical islam” to begin with? the reason these men, these “terrorists” are so wanted to begin with, is because they no longer wanted to be american puppets. Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, both formerly worked with america. until, what happened? you taught them the idea of “democracy”. and when they learned about “american democracy” they became tyrants.
honestly, i don’t have enough fingers on my hands to count they amount of times the news headlines have been “america blows the fuck out of (insert islamic country here), and kills 50 people. one of these people may possibly be (insert one of 10 million terrorist names here), a high official in (name of terrorist organization).” and then, two days later that person will come on the news and say “no, i am still alive and well.” yet, we always forget about those times. about the times that america raids a house, kills a whole bunch of innocent people, and in the end comes no closer to the target they were aiming for.
so, i will echo allison’s question of “if we retreat now, what will happen in iraq? iran? palestine? syria?” and i will think about the answer logically. america has already fucked up the mindset of the iraqi people, by killing thousands of their loved ones, but, the fact of the matter is, iraq has a government now. a government which supposedly america supports. so, why don’t we just leave it to them? why does america literally have to become the “world police”?
so, to determine whether or not “pulling out” of iraq is the best idea, lets try to figure out if going there was right to begin with. the reason cited for going to iraq was to “disarm” them of “weapons of mass destruction”, playing on the fear of innocent american’s like allison. while in iraq, george bush defeated saddam hussein, and his entire regime and family, which was done out of fear of the power they had. now america is going to “finish the job” in iraq, killing all the “insurgents” and “terrorists” they can find, out of fear of them building up a well-earned retaliation on america.
i’m sure many cliché’d sayings can be used here. “two wrongs don’t make a right(rather, three in this case)”, or perhaps “what goes around, comes around”, perhaps “treat everybody as you want them to treat you”.
i’ll leave you with this idea. i was reading up on the entire saddam trial, from beginning to end, (which, by the way, i’m sure you can guess i found it to be unjust, improperly conducted, rushed, biased, and overall a poor excuse of a trial that should NOT have resulted in death), and i stumbled upon a little idea which i found interesting. i’m not sure who to quote on it, but, it may have even been saddam himself. anyways, here it is:
if saddam hussein has been executed for the “murder” of 147 iraqis (some of which, by the way, were revealed to actually still be alive), which were, at the time under the laws of iraq given a fair trial, and were executed for attempted assassination of the president (saddam), who is going to put george bush on trial for the murder of thousands of innocent iraqi people?
the answer is pretty simple. no one. the only power in the world right now which is supposed to be “above” the us, is the UN. i’m sure you can all recall when the UN told the US it was NOT allowed to invade iraq, yet, they did it anyways. so, fuck the UN, their say doesn’t matter.
so, to answer your question, playtah, i didn’t sign it to be a sabateur, or because i support it. because, i don’t support it. in fact, i barely think it’s nearly enough. personally, if america was considering impeaching bill clinton for getting his cock sucked, i think it would be logical to impeach george bush for causing the death of hundreds of thousands of human beings during his presidency.
p.s., allison, if you are going to call people “uninformed”, and question how legit they are, i would suggest using facts which are on topic with your argument. it’s nice that you know all about drunk drivers, but, that’s about as useful as me saying “more people overdosed on drugs in america, than saddam hussein killed.” that should be my argument, actually. forget everything i just said in this entire comment (sorry for it being so long, by the way). just forget it all. and read only this.
“More people overdosed on drugs in America than Saddam Hussein killed.”
Playtah responds:
Posted: January 12th, 2007 at 1:53 pm →
basic theology - Excellent points. America shouldn’t be the watchdog of the world. And many of the problems we are dealing with now are because of our foriegn policies in the past. Also, about the drugs killing more people than Saddam…I say we start bombing drugs. We need to liberate the baggies.
General stuff about some of the subjects mentioned in the comments…
In regards to the nuclear weapons thing, who is the only nation to EVER use a nuclear weapon in a war? We are. So what gives us the right to judge another nation’s right to have a weapon? Perhaps that is better left to the United Nations, which is comprised of many nations who have to share this world.
And the whole “bring democracy to other countries” mission that President Bush has is, in my opinion, not good. Democracy is NOT going to work in Iraq. Mark my words, the democracy we set up in Iraq will fall. Plain and simple, that country needs a dictator at this point. Not that I like dictators, but in a culture where disagreement is a life-or-death issue, democracy won’t work. A dictator is needed to rule the country with an iron fist, and make some semblance of peace by punishing those who disagree with him. Is this a good method? Of course not. But until a country’s people are willing to obey laws and disagree with others without killing them, a dictator is the only way to have a stable government. Do I like that people would have to suffer? Of course not. But in a culture that uncivilized (uncivilized here = not able to disagree peacefully), I can’t see any other options besides a dictator, or all out civil war. It looks now like a Vietnam situation - as soon as the foot of the last American soldier leaves the country, all the “progress” we made will collapse. Besides, who are we to decide what kind of government a country should have?
In regards to how to exit Iraq, I don’t know what the best way would be. We basically went in and destroyed a country for no reason. So we have some responsibility to clean up the mess. But if we stay there, we’re going to be trying to help the new democratic government, which may not last for long anyway. Perhaps we should ask the United Nations and countries who opposed the war to help us with ideas. But that would require humility, and President Bush hasn’t been good for much of that.