Calling me a traitor...
I'd like to let everyone know that I've received some very harsh emails/comments questioning my patriotism, my viewpoint and calling me a traitor for questioning the decisions of George Bush and this administration. Most you've read because even though I do regulate the comments, I feel it's only fair to post them. Some though, do cross the line and are deleted. Those who can't make sound, or even un-sound arguments without the debate becoming personal aren't allowed to participate.
Let's get a couple of things clear. I voted for George Bush in 2000 even though his campaign and their tactics made me quit the game out of disgust. I think his leadership right after 9/11 and through the initial invasion into Afghanistan was exactly the right course of action in the name of national security. However, from my previous experience and acknowledgment of a new enemy, one we hadn't been concerned with prior to 9/11, it would be wrong to focus on an old dictator in a country we strategically control instead of dealing with the real enemy, the terrorists in the 60 plus countries around the world living in the shadows.
So I want all of my readers to know that I was part of the world who now attacks me. I know who those people are, I courted them from birth. I'd be doing the same thing if I hadn't gotten out of the game. That was our family business, winning elections for Republicans. Through that experience, I also know who the Neocons are and of their objective to insert the U.S. Military between Tehran and Palestine (i.e. Iraq) in the name of spreading diplomatic freedom even at the point of the gun and in a unilateral manor if needed. But this reasoning doesn't take into account this new world we're in and this new enemy that we don't know much about. Sadly, resources are being shifted as I type from Afghanistan to the "possibility" we might overthrow Saddam. Why start another war?
Now, if all of what President Bush and his team says is true about Iraq (and there are doubts), then he's right, we probably should invade and we can't take that chance. But if I'm right and they're using the bully pulpit to sell a war based on an old ideological grudge that takes us in the wrong direction in our fight against terrorism, God help us.
Let's get a couple of things clear. I voted for George Bush in 2000 even though his campaign and their tactics made me quit the game out of disgust. I think his leadership right after 9/11 and through the initial invasion into Afghanistan was exactly the right course of action in the name of national security. However, from my previous experience and acknowledgment of a new enemy, one we hadn't been concerned with prior to 9/11, it would be wrong to focus on an old dictator in a country we strategically control instead of dealing with the real enemy, the terrorists in the 60 plus countries around the world living in the shadows.
So I want all of my readers to know that I was part of the world who now attacks me. I know who those people are, I courted them from birth. I'd be doing the same thing if I hadn't gotten out of the game. That was our family business, winning elections for Republicans. Through that experience, I also know who the Neocons are and of their objective to insert the U.S. Military between Tehran and Palestine (i.e. Iraq) in the name of spreading diplomatic freedom even at the point of the gun and in a unilateral manor if needed. But this reasoning doesn't take into account this new world we're in and this new enemy that we don't know much about. Sadly, resources are being shifted as I type from Afghanistan to the "possibility" we might overthrow Saddam. Why start another war?
Now, if all of what President Bush and his team says is true about Iraq (and there are doubts), then he's right, we probably should invade and we can't take that chance. But if I'm right and they're using the bully pulpit to sell a war based on an old ideological grudge that takes us in the wrong direction in our fight against terrorism, God help us.
Comments