Teddy Bloggie Blog Blogging

I kind of understand why Bush wants to get Saddam out of office; as the president, he has the duty to protect his country. But you are right, he doesn't have enough evidence to justify going to war. All he has are a bunch of "maybes", but not very many "definites." And Congress is out of its mind if it agrees to go to war, where's the evidence to support killing a bunch of innocent people? And if Iraq had all these weapons of mass destruction, why haven't they used them yet? And if we go to war against them, who will support us? From what I can see, the UN doesn't really agree with us, only Israel is on our side. And look at Israel, they're bombing the hell out of the Palestinians and Sharon is not even remorseful about killing innocent bystanders. The U.S. and Israel are crazy, September 11 was just the right excuse to start war on the Middle East.

The problem is that the people in power who disagree with Bush aren't doing enough to be heard and to make an impact. I read about how this senator and that senator feel we shouldn't go to war, but are they making these speeches on the Congress floor? Or are they just all talk and no action? And the senators who do agree with going to war, are they really representing the opinion of the people? I've spoken with different folks on this matter and no one thinks bombing Iraq is a good idea. Who does think this is a good idea, besides Bush and his staff who are stretching the facts to push for the war? I don't think a picture of a rebuilt building is good enough evidence to bomb a country and leave its inhabitants with more problems.

Bush keeps talking about how freeing the Iraqis will give them more rights and freedoms. But what about our rights here, in this country? It seems like our rights are getting slimmer and slimmer, you can be taken off an airplane if you decide to change seats or if you look too "suspicious". What is too "suspicious"? If a flight is empty and you can spread out, I say go for it. What about the FBI and CIA being able to tap your phone lines and put you under surveillence just because you look "suspicious"? I thought the Constitution and Bill of Rights protected us, and that even the president couldn't supercede these documents. But it looks like our civic classes are wrong because Mr. Bush keeps using his "executive" power to override many things. Isn't there a limit as to how much power the president actually has?

A side note, maybe Bush is pushing for the war because elections are coming up and he is losing popularity in the polls. But that is a totally different topic, not to be discussed now.

kiss my ass

ok lisa whatever President Bush is doing everything in his power to keep our country safe and I would like to see you run the country yourself and see if you could do any better. He, being the President, probobly knows alot more than you do about the current situation that our country is in, so it would probobly be good if you didn't put him down when he is making decisions trying to keep this country, and you, safe. Also, President Bush isn't just making desicions and going to war because elections are coming up and hes "losing popularity in the polls". I would like to remind you that he is a Christian and is praying probobly harder than ever about the decisions he is making. He isn't a people- pleaser like Clinton who freaking lied to the whole country and still didn't get impeached. Clinton made decisions that made people satisfied and he looked like he was doing his job the way he was supposed to. I bet he never consulted the Lord Almighty in his decisions. He was caught having an affair with a woman while he was in office, while he had a wife, while he was supposed to be working to help our country for the good of us all and be an example to everyone. I'm not saying he had to be perfect, people made mistakes. But instead of coming out with the truth and keeping some of his dignity and integrity, he flat out lied to all of our faces. Bush would not do that. Neither would he purposely put our country in a danger he knew we could not face. He doesn't kill people like Saddam does. And if trying to take out a lunatic who kills people and doesn't care, and hundreds of people dying in the World Trade Centers on September 11 that people worked with, that people were related or best friends with, or that the Iraqis didn't remove their warheads when we told them to and they said they did, (that would be lying on their part so why should we be able to trust them in the future, if that isn't all enough to go to war, then what is? And the plane thing, checking out "suspicious" people, I'd like to see the day when they stop checking people and the "suspicious" person that they didn't check, was on your plane and turned out to be a hijacker just like on 9/11. How would you feel about what you said then? I'm not saying I want you to die, but just think about what you said. maybe if they did the checking and inspections they do now before 9/11, hundreds of people would still be alive. It's not just to make you mad or take up time. It's for your own good. And if you don't want there to be people that are checking out things that can save your life, then your just really really strange. I could say more, but that's enough for now, and I'll write back if you want to talk again.

hi elisa,

I'm glad you reached my website and I'm glad you left a comment here. I think dialogue is always important, especially in a time of crisis as our country is facing. As that is the case, allow me to share with you my point of view.

You wrote:

"But instead of coming out with the truth and keeping some of his dignity and integrity, he flat out lied to all of our faces. Bush would not do that. "

You assume that the Bush administration hasn't lied to us, but that's not the case. The Bush administration told us that Al Qaeda was connected with Saddam, and the facts simply do not support that assertion. The Bush administration said Iraq received nuclear materials from Niger but the UN inspectors showed that the documents the Bush administration produced were forged. Powell showed pictures of supposed Iraqi chemical weapons trucks, but Hans Blix debunked those pictures as inconsequential because they were taken weeks or months apart. Therefore, there has been no evidence of Iraq's possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Remember, the Bush administration told the world and the American public that the two reasons to attack Iraq was because of WMD and its links to Al Qaeda. However, no evidence for these allegations have been produced to date. That's why the world is against us. If we had evidence we should show it to the world so that our war against Iraq will have international legitimacy. Bush also said:

"BUSH: And yes, we'll call for a vote.

QUESTION: No matter what?

BUSH: No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam."

The above is verbatim what Bush said at his press conference in front of the American public. When it became politically expedient he reneged on that promise. There were those of us who hoped he would push the diplomatic process further or trust it to begin with. Unfortunately, he hurried to put troops at the border and the rest of the world stopped believing that we wanted peaceful resolution. He not only reneged on his call for a vote in the Security Council to the American public, but he also did it in front of the world and we really need the trust of the rest of the world in order to fight terrorism and bring peace to the middle east.

Somewhere along the line, Bush changed the reason to attack Iraq, from WMD and Al Qaeda to Freedom and Democracy for Iraqis. I'm not comfortable with a President who changes his reasons for acting just because the reasons he came up with weren't working. In fact, challenging the regime of a sovereign country is a dangerous path. Saying Americans have the right to remove a leader of a sovereign country sets a very serious and ominous precedent. What's to stop Turkey to do the same after the war? What's to stop Pakistan and India from replace each other's leaders? International laws and institutions have a very important role to play in the peace and security of every country. Without it, we could not fight a global war on terrorism.

I understand from your post that you are a spiritual and religious person. Most religious leaders in the U.S. and around the world are against this war and against the possibility of a pre-emptive "just" war. For "thou shalt not kill" does not come with a footnote like "unless it's Saddam". I don't think the Bush administration exhausted the diplomatic channels or invested whole heartedly in diplomacy to begin with. I'm against Saddam, I'm against terrorism, but I believe we have gone down the wrong path and have ended with a war and blood on our hands and conscience. Now, that we're here, I can only wish our soldiers the best and hope this war results in minimum number of casualties and minimum damage to the civilian infrastructure in Iraq like water treatment plants, hospitals, bridges, etc. I also hope this is the end of aggression in our attempt to rein in terrorism. Because I don't believe following Israel's example in fighting terrorism (using force) will result in peace.

What I have said is of course only my personal opinion and I wanted to share with you my point of view so that in a free country like ours, we may understand eachother better and be able to stand together for what we both want: peace, liberty, equality and justice.

Teddy

elisa, i respect your opinions and we're all free to have our differences, but do not attack me personally. i don't know if you know anyone who has been sent in to fight this war, but i do and i'd like to see these people again. so i am against a war that our president has gotten us into. and he has lied to us, he gives ultimatums to saddam on one day(and if you think i support him, you're wrong. i want him out as well) and then changes these ultimatums the next. how are you supposed to please someone like this? and how can i trust him if he keeps changing his mind about going into war? if he was more willing to work things out peacefully and diplomatically before going to battle, then i'd have a higher opinion of bush. but he's portrayed himself to be the "shoot first, ask questions later" type of person, and i can't agree with that. also, since bush has attacked iraq, what makes him think that we won't be attacked back? isn't that what we did when 9/11 happened? are we the only country that's allowed to defend ourselves against an attack?