1. 2. 3. Debate!

Jeff's original blog post can be read on his blog at

Jeff's Blog

My response to Jeff's Blog Post

I think that you would like to think that you're on the fence but this post has strong opinion. If you love America, which I do not doubt you do, then you have to love all of it. It is the right of the people to protest and question the officials that we have elected to office. I dont think that any American should ever cry censorship to any comment that a fellow American has to say about any of our elected officials no matter what stance the country is in, war or peace. Democracy only works when all sides are heard and sometimes people must be outspoken in order to make others listen.

I have to question your "independent" stance when you make accusations the New York Times and Cindy Sheehan are only in business to propogate their "ultra-liberal views." The framing of your commentary does not project an independent stance.

Did Iraq attack us on 9/11? No. Do Al Qaeda and Bin Laden deserve to be brought to justice for their crimes? ABSOLUTELY. That is why there is protest. The relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is sketchy at best and Bush himself has admitted that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11.

If there were a DIRECT link to Hussein and his country in the 9/11 attacks I would be behind this war. If the war in Iraq was an operation to actively persue and dismantle Al Qaeda and Bin Laden I would be behind this war. If WMD were found in Iraq then I would think this war was worth the price that we have paid. That is what the war protests are about. That is why 68% of Americans believe that the war was not worth the price we have had to pay.

I love this country very much. I am so saddened to see that my nation that I grew up revering as a model for the global community to follow has fallen into an image of greed and selfishness due to the ambitions of a handful of witless idealogues. Make no mistake about it when someone, foreign or domestic, attacks this country I will defend it with all my fiber and that is why I oppose Bush.

Please dont be so trite as to think that you're a patriot because you stick up for the President because he's the President and we're at war and we shouldnt say anything bad about him. The slanted analogies to WWII dont hold any water. Give specific examples, make a case, tell me why YOU think the President and this War is correct.

I look forward to our discourse.

Jeff's Response

irst of all, Adam my Friend. I NEVER EVER said Bush is 100%correct with this war! I understand some of his arguments, yes, but I never said it was the right or wrong thing to do. No one can really know what they would do unless they are in his shoes and knew what he knew. So you just lost the debate. I did say I want this to work out, we are in way to deep. Pulling out would be a disaster and send the wrong message to these terror nuts. Yes that’s my opinion

Second: I never wrote about Saddam having links to Al Qaeda in my post.. did I?? . The whole WMD stuff. The whole world said Saddam had WMD’s every intelligence agency in the world said that. (Saudi, Jordanian, Russian, French, British, CIA....) Intelligence is never 100%, that’s the nature of intelligence. How do you know he did not move them??. We know he had them, Christ, he used them before. You know anyone in the intelligence community?? I do, a few “Big Boys” actually. Please don’t use the whole WMD argument. There is a lot of information the public does not know or understands about Intelligence, that’s all I can say about that.

I am fair, did Bush have good reason to go in. That is really hard to say. I stand by what I said. No one can really know what they would do unless they are in his shoes and knew what he knew. Remember it is a post 9/11 world. There is no question he F’ed up the aftermath.

There is a Huge Difference between questioning the war and “Undermining” it. You really think Cindy Sheehan is Patriotic... the flat out dishonest, hurtful things she says about America, she has gone way to far. Even the Liberals are going against her because she attacked Hillary... Call me a Right winged Nut then, I want nothing to do with those people. The Sheehan crowd gets "excited" every time they hear bad news about the war just to hurt Bush. New York Times ran more than 50 front-page stories on the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Was over 50 necessary?? Remember what happened when Newsweek ran that Flat out Untruthful story about the Koran being dropped in the toilet?? They retracted the story. A riot broke out and more anti-Americanism flamed in the Arab world, I don’t want to use the word censorship, but people need to be responsible and held accountable for there stories. People died because of Newsweeks fake story. No Question, more suicide bombers, used to kill our troops, were recruited with that fake story. Americans died.

I am sticking to by my WW II theme.

My Response to Jeff's Response

You are avoiding my original challenge to you but yet you declare the debate over. I asked you to provide me with reasons you think that protestors should not protest against the war. You have just regurgitated banal facts that are common knowledge.

Yes, many world intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The evidence that was used to make the case to the UN was dubious at best. Colin Powell brought with him photos of chemical plants that could or coulld not have been producing toxic chemicals. There was no way to tell from the photos. He also showed photos of rail cars that supposedly were mobile laboratories that could produce anthrax etc and could be deployed over the rail network. Still though, all I saw were pictures of rail cars from the sky and mock ups of what was supposedly inside of them. When Adlai Stevenson went to the UN during the Cuban Missile crisis he brought with him photos showing nuclear missles with USSR written on them stationed on the island of Cuba. Thats evidence, that is cause for concern. Now what other evidence there may be that wasnt shown is inconsequential. All I know is what the Bush administration showed the world to make their point. So if your "Big Boys" have some more compelling evidence and or insights on intelligence for the case for war in Iraq I encourage you to tell them to share it with us. 58% of us dont think this war was worth it, if there is secret evidence to prove us wrong now would be the time to divuldge it.

If you have difficulty in defending Bush for engaging in the war ("...did Bush have good reason to go in. That is really hard to say.") then how can you defend the president if you admit that you arent sure he made the correct decision in the first place?

Finally, I think that there is huge distinction between what Cindy Sheehan is doing and "undermining" the war effort. She wants Bush to be held accountable. If he went out to her and spoke to her in front of the entire media and said, "Cindy, Im sorry that its come this. I'm sorry that you son died and made some mistakes but I promise you that we are going to fix it and your sacrifice, your son's sacrifice will be vindicated." Thats all she wants. The entire situation could be diffused if he would admit that he made a mistake BUT he is going to fix it. The war protests are about accountability not about getting excited that Bush is failing. He does that on his own just fine, the media nor a mother of a fallen soldier do that TO him.

The Abu Ghraib comment was a red herring.

When I bring up the references to Saddam and Al Qaeda I do not mean to put words in your mouth. Those are my examples that I use to support my position for being against the war. I would like to hear some examples why you think the antiwar movement is damaging to the country, especially since 58% of the country think it was a mistake.

To start, how is the Newsweek article, and the damage it caused, connected to what Cindy Sheehan is doing?