Feeling any safer after invading Iraq? Didn' think so

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by -Cp, Jul 11, 2005.

  1. -Cp

    -Cp Senior Member

    Sep 23, 2004
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Here's a great letter to the author of <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_2848080" target=_blank">this article</a> written by a self-serving journalist:

    An Open Letter to Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald regarding his editorial, entitled "Feeling safer? Didn't think so", July 11, 2005.


    When did myopia become an attribute in the world of journalism? At what point were writers on the Opinion page required to shed such commodities as memory, knowledge of history and humanity, and simple old common sense solely to support a political agenda? In order to substantiate your contention that last Thursday's terrorist assault in London is evidence that Mr. Bush is culpable, a whole lot of memory, history, and common sense has to be ignored...so where do we start, dude?

    Let's deal with memory first, shall we? And let's pay particular attention to Iraqi WMD and Saddam's link to terrorism:

    1. 17 UN resolutions between 1993 and 2000 - (in other words, pre-Bush)
    - specifying the need for removal of such devices from Saddam's blood-stained hands.

    2. Endless speeches by Democrats - again, pre-Bush - regarding getting WMD out of Iraqi control (we're talkin' Clinton X 2, Albright, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, etc.)

    3. The daily bombing of Iraq by the Clinton Administration for non-compliance to UN demands for WMD inspections...bombings you journalism guys chose to pretty much ignore.

    4. The actual use of chemical and biological weapons in killing an estimated 200,000 Iraqis by their own leader, most of them Kurds (this is called "ethnic cleansing", a term you guys used to support Clinton's involvement in the Balkans).

    5. Eighteen freaking months of UN obstructionism before our invasion of Iraq - and you're surprised we didn't find anything??? Well, anything, that is, except a bunch of MIG-29s buried in the sand (Hint: A MIG-29 is one helluva lot bigger than a WMD).

    6. Salmon Pak, the terrorist training camp 25 miles southeast of Baghdad, complete with a Boeing 707 fuselage for airliner hijacking training, that you extremely intelligent journalists have chosen to avoid reporting...for whatever reason.

    7. The disappearance and mysterious fate of an estimated 26 "suitcase nukes" from the Soviet arsenal, information released by the KGB, the nasty little 30 lb. dirty bombs having gone to the highest bidders. Any guesses as to who those bidders might have been, hmmm?

    8. There's enough in this category to keep me writing all day, but we need to "move on", as they say...

    So, how about checking out your knowledge of history and humanity:

    1. Incidents of Islamic terrorism that stretch back to the 1972 Olympics, mostly unchallenged. Mr. Bush was still in school, Leonard.

    2. Clinton's insistence that Israel concede to 97% of Palestinian demands - which they did, and which led to an INCREASE in terrorist bombings of such "military" targets as buses full of civilians and pizza parlors.

    3. Clinton's support of MUSLIMS in the Balkans by our bombing of CHRISTIANS. Any guesses as to how much water that carried with your radical Islam buddies???

    4. The mutilation and burning of American civilian volunteers, who gave their lives for the betterment of Iraqi citizens, plus the beheadings of innocents, all having taken a backseat in reporting to such "deplorable"
    human rights violations as the supposed sexual humiliation of captured terrorists and the unproven defilement of a Quran (Have you a word or two to say about how the Bible is treated in Saudi Arabia perhaps? Or here, for that matter?).

    Common Sense:

    You know, there's really little to say here because, frankly, you don't seem to have any. You are a journalist who continually spews forth vomitous rhetoric denouncing Bush and Republicans in general, using only that evidence which supports the attack and ignoring evidence that doesn't. I'm sorry, Leonard, but that's stupid. Such efforts are what get us into trouble, not the prosecution of a war. Don't you think maybe the enemy is reading the garbage witten by you and other journalists of "selective memory"? Don't you imagine that they get encouragement from such ill-thought-out crap?

    Can you understand that, rather than our very necessary war in Iraq, just possibly you and your colleagues might have caused the terrorists to think there was ground to be gained by killing civilians in London?

    World War II wasn't won without casualties, Leonard. Believe it or not, some of those casualties occurred on our own soil, and that of our most staunch ally, Great Britain. Don't believe it?

    Look it up, Leonard. It's part of that history you so fervently wish to ignore.

    Dennis Fishel
    Alexandria, Kentucky

Share This Page