Sometimes I Write Letters

A rare Saturday post--I've lately taken to giving myself weekends off--hell, there's plenty of other things out there to read, and when I really gave up on weekend posts there was a minor health concern (a swollen elbow--fortunately that's gone now). Anyway, this ridiculous editorial raised my hackles this morning to the extent that I fired off the following to Deborah Saunder's, who wrote it:

Ms. Saunders,

Per your op-ed, the following response:

---I reread Kerry's very long and also ponderous remarks before he voted in favor of the October 2002 resolution authorizing force in Iraq. Kerry never mentioned Osama bin Laden. (Is that the fault of Bush, too?)

The resolution was in regards to Iraq, not Al Qaeda. To equate the two is, quite simply, racist. Perhaps you think "all A-rabs look alike," but a rational individual knows the difference between fundamentalist Islamic lunatics and the secular evil embodied by Saddam Hussein.

---The resolution said, "The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" (my italics) to defend U.S. interests and enforce the U.N. Security Council resolutions that Hussein was flouting.

What's more, Bush had warned the United Nations that it would be irrelevant if it failed to enforce its resolutions even as Kerry says he believed Bush would only go to war as a "last resort."

"Necessary and appropriate" doesn't mean "immediate and without forethought." If I authorize someone to drive my car, for instance, I don't expect them to use it with utter disregard for safety. I don't expect them to drive it over a cliff.

Bush himself admitted that force should be used only "as a last resort" in Thursday's debate. That he's come to this conclusion only after disregarding advice from everyone except a small group of neo-conservatives lobbying for the PNAC agenda is shameful. It has led to the death of over 1,000 US soldiers, and over 10,000 Iraqi civilians. Additionally, thousands more soldiers have been wounded, many seriously, just like thousands of Iraqi civilians.

Perhaps you consider that an acceptable price to pay for the ouster of Saddam Hussein. If so, ask yourself if it would be just as acceptable if a friend or loved one was among those killed or wounded. If you STILL consider the price acceptable, then I'd like to ask--which friend or relative would you be willing to see dead or wounded in exchange for the ouster of Saddam Hussein? Would you be willing to tell that person directly?

Bush certainly did warn the United Nations that it would be irrelevant if it failed to "enforce its resolutions." But you ignore the fact that the United Nations was in the process of "enforcing its resolutions" when Bush demanded they evacuate Iraq so he could launch his splendid little war. Bush also ignored major last minute concessions offered by Hussein's government in a final, desperate action to stave off invasion. Perhaps if we'd allowed the United Nations to enforce their resolutions regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, we would have discovered that Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction, thus rendering Bush's justification for immediate invasion moot.

By the way, that doesn't mean Saddam Hussein wasn't a vicious, evil despot. But an examination of the record reveals that Saddam's despotic reign was not Bush's casus belli (his words). Possession of banned weapons was Bush's justification for invasion--a justification now known to be in error.

Bush now goes hat-in-hand to the United Nations, requesting assistance from the organization he dismissed as irrelevant. I don't think it's any surprise that the reception from the UN has been cool, to say the least.

---Bush can joke about how Kerry said he voted for $87 billion in troop funding before he voted against it. Worse, however, is the chilling fact that Kerry withheld his support for the spending bill after he told "Face the Nation" it would be reckless and "irresponsible" to vote against it.

Kerry voted for a resolution that actually provided funding for the war--a resolution that Bush explicitly threatened to veto. I don't see you expressing any degree of outrage that Bush would threaten to veto funding for a war he started. Interesting. You simply ignore the fact that the resolution upon which Bush insisted has no mechanism for RAISING any of the $87 billion dollars in appropriations. Instead, the cost of war is added to the ballooning federal deficit.

John Kerry's position has been consistent--he voted to grant the president authority to use force against Saddam Hussein, if Bush thought it necessary. He expected that Bush would use this power wisely. Instead, Bush chose to use this power rashly. His invasion was poorly planned to such an extent that we are now in a quagmire. If Kerry made a mistake, it was in assuming that George W. Bush would use prudent judgment when using the authority granted to him.

Under those circumstances, running against George W. Bush is an appropriate response.

Regards,

Michael