I, like you, am worried about our families, our fellow citizens and our country remaining FREE from the destructive forces of evil. What we do not agree-upon, I guess, is the best way to get there.
I truly understand your stance regarding this war, if you continue to think that our president misled us, what I do not understand is if you take the same stance knowing that the rest of the Congress, France, Germany and the United Nations had the same intelligence as our president and yet choose to do nothing. The world will always have a degree of good versus evil. Daily, I thank God for giving the United States the power to control and destroy the entire world over every other country. Imagine if this power had wound up in the hands of the Communist Russians or the Chinese Communists. Do you believe they would have the same restraint that we do. There will always be evil men in it that cannot be reasoned with or pacified at the negotiating table. Some people have big empty hole in their heart. They can never kill enough to fill the whole. Do you agree with the leader of Spain's stance that the world cannot use force to deal with terrorism? If so, please explain how you deal with someone who wants nothing else than our country and our citizens dead. If (when) they obtain chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, they will not hesitate to use them. Osama Binladin was a terrorist who would have been happy to fund the destruction of America. Yes, maybe not this year or next year, that you know that if he had been left alone he does a direct threat to every man woman and child in this country. We now find out that France and Russia did not vote or support us at the United Nations because they were receiving kickbacks from Saddam Hussein from the oil for food program. Many Americans feel that we would have been justified at the United Nations "gone along."
Does it change your stance knowing that the main reason why they did not "support our president" is because of greed?
I find it very hard to believe that Americans with are so divided as to the leadership that President Bush is providing to this country in our time of war. I think that if the press in the United States did not teeter on the verge of being socialistic, that our countrymen would receive a truer picture to the outstanding leadership President Bush has provided. Here is a letter to the editor that I adjusted from another writer. This election will determine whether the United States follows Spain's leadership and becomes a socialistic society or whether we continue following the Constitution as our forefathers wanted.
Ted Kennedy has called President Bush "the worst president in history." Absolutely no one likes war, but let's put presidential leadership into perspective. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Yet the Vietnamese never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 American lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without U.N. or the French's consent, yet Bosnian never attacked us. Clinton was offered but did not accept Osama Binladin's head on a platter by Sudan, thus enabling Binladin the ability to attacked us on multiple occasions. In the 3 years since terrorist attacked us, President Bush has liberated 50 million people in two countries, crushed the Taliban, and crippled Al-Qaida. His “cowboy” tactics have persuaded Momar Gadhafi to give up its nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, move forward with nuclear inspectors in Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered over 300,000 of his own people. Unfortunately we lost 600 soldiers, an average of 200 a year. Bush has accomplished this all abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Do Americans honestly think Al Gore or John Kerry would have accomplished this much in the three years since 9/11? And who will be the most effective leader in protecting Americans against a possible nuclear, biological or chemical attack in the next 4 years.
No, our president is not perfect, no man is, but at least he takes a stance based on principles and does not waffle depending on which way the wind is blowing and depending on what he thinks will garnish of the most votes. For example, take his stance on illegal immigration. He is well aware of the fact that the majority of conservatives cannot stand his stated policy, yet he believes in the path he has chosen and is sticking to it, regardless of the fact that he will lose Republican votes because of it. And leader must have principles that Americans can count on. Imagine what is going to happen worldwide with terrorism and our upcoming conflict with China should Kerry become president.
So far, I have not seen Kerry come up with a better plan than the current one to protect our family's our fellow citizens and our country.
All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. British philosopher. |
