They like Bush, and they are not stupid (Superb piece; Must Read)

Most Americans still think Bush did the right thing in getting rid of Saddam Hussein, writes Caroline Overington.

There is going to be a presidential election in the United States in November and George Bush is going to win. President Bush's approval rating is around 60 per cent. That's comparable with Ronald Reagan in 1984, who redefined the term "landslide" when he won 49 of the 50 states.

Naturally, this makes some people crazy. How can Americans vote for a guy who went to war over weapons of mass destruction that did not exist?

First, the US economy is growing at an estimated 5 per cent a year. Interest rates are low. Bush's tax cuts are in people's pockets, and they are spending happily.

Second, Americans like Bush. They see him as patriotic, family-centred and self-disciplined. He is also teetotal, conservative, and Christian. He supports marriage, and opposes abortion and homosexual marriage. There are people who think this makes him a bit old-fashioned but millions of Americans like old-fashioned values.

Most Americans also support Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq. They are not stupid. They know that the so-called intelligence about Saddam Hussein was wrong. Despite this, 67 per cent still believe the US did the right thing.

Because I live in New York, I rarely get to hear the voice of this majority. Instead, I get magazines such as Vanity Fair, which last month had a column by the editor angrily listing statistics from the war in Iraq. Such as: number of American soldiers killed: 500. Number of weapons of mass destruction found: 0.

But, as some readers pointed out, there were statistics missing from the list. These include: number of mass graves uncovered in Iraq: around 260, containing as many as 20,000 bodies. Number of people liberated from brutal, murderous leadership: 12 million. And number of times Bush lied about receiving oral sex from a White House intern: 0.

The Iraq war has cost the lives of about 500 American soldiers. Some would have you believe that this makes Iraq a quagmire. But the truth is, if Western nations have come to the point where 500 deaths is an unbearable war-time loss, then we should also say we are no longer prepared to fight wars, because about the same number of soldiers die every year, in peacetime.

Americans are not casual about casualties. Each and every one of the lives lost was precious to them. I remember sitting on a small plane, travelling from North Carolina to New York, when the war was a few weeks old. I was reading USA Today and, as I opened it to study a map of Iraq, one half of the newspaper fell into the lap of my fellow passenger. I turned to apologise, but he said: "No problem. Actually, do you mind if I have a look?"

Together we studied the picture, trying to work out how far the Americans were from seizing power. It was clear from the diagrams that troops were near Saddam's airport, and close to the centre of Baghdad. I turned to my seat mate and said: "I don't think this is going to be a long battle, after all."

It was only then that I noticed, with horror, that he had started to cry. And then I noticed something else: a photograph, wrapped in plastic, pinned to his lapel. It was a picture of his 20-year-old son, a young marine who died in the first days of the war. The man's wife was sitting across the aisle from us. She had a round bowl on her lap, filled with water and some drooping tulips. The movement of the aircraft was making the water slop around. She was trying to wipe her hands, and her tears.

The couple told me they had just been to a private meeting with Bush to discuss the loss of their son. At the time, it was already clear that Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction.

"But I never thought it was about the weapons," my seat mate said. And, although I can't remember his exact words, he also said something like: "We have always stood up for freedom, in our own country, and for other people."

Any student of history knows that this is true. America saved the Western world from communism. America saved Australia and, for that matter, France from a system that would stop you from reading this newspaper.

Americans support the war in Iraq and, by extension, Bush because they see it as part of a bigger picture. Like everybody, they now know that Saddam was not the threat they thought he was (at least, not to them) but they still think it was a good idea to deal with him, before he became one.

The price of freedom is high. You might think you would not sacrifice your life for it, but maybe you don't have to. After all, 20-year-old Americans are doing it for you, every day.

This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/20/1074360761144.html

... the editor angrily listing statistics from the war in Iraq. Such as: number of American soldiers killed: 500

There are statistics and there are statistics. Since the antiwar crowd likes to use them in this, it's only fair to put them in perspective:

500 deaths = number of people killed in auto accidents in six days in this country

500 deaths = number of people killed by drunk drivers in this country in 2 1/2 weeks

500 deaths = number of deaths in this country from alcohol abuse in about 22 hours

500 deaths = number of people who die in this country from smoking-related illnesses in about a 10 hour period

and finally, the Big One:

500 deaths = number of people who die in this country about every 3 hours from abortion

That is not to minimize the sacrifice that those 500 brave souls and their families have made. Each one is a tragedy and, as with all wartime deaths, those of us who remain must never forget or fail to appreciate that loss. But those who would use that as a political issue would be well-advised to examine what the cost in human lives is for those other issues they so passionately advocate.

Thank you, JohnH! - for this great resource in one place of typical Democrat backpeddling on the war in Iraq.

It typifies the "opportunitstic" character of Democrats and how they will shift position with any sudden change of wind.

Democrat presidential candidates GRILLING ON THE SPIT - PING!

Official Democrat Party Terrorism Policy

Do Nothing Democrats On The War In Terror
By Tamara Wilhite

D = do-nothing democrat, C = concerned citizen

C: What do we do about the terrorists?

D: Do nothing.

C: Shouldn't we be trying to fight them?

D: Certainly not. If we kill them, they'll hate us.

C: Don't they already hate us?

D: That's beside the point. They don't like us, and we can't give them a valid reason for their hatred of us by killing their cohorts.

C: What about the fact that they've been killing us for years?

D: Soldiers volunteered for that when they volunteered for the military, so their deaths don't count unless it furthers our agenda. Conservative black diplomats serving in Africa don't matter. Dead evangelical missionaries get what they asked for - martyrdom. We shouldn't do anything about those idiots who got themselves killed.

C: What should we do if they continue to attack us at home?

D: Nothing! We can't strike back. That would risk enraging the Arab Street.

C: I thought they already hated us.

D: Yes, but striking out at them would breed more terrorists.

C: Aren't they already breeding terrorists?

D: Yes. But the Muslim minority in this nation is very vocal and very active in increasing their numbers by both local production and foreign imports. We can't risk them being angry with us. They're very conservative, but they can be lulled to the Democratic side. Acting against their friends in the Middle East risks them becoming violent in our own streets.

C: Haven't some of those locally born or naturalized citizens sought to act against the US?

D: We can't assume they did anything. We don't have adequate proof yet.

C: Those men from Lackawanna pled guilty.

D: They haven't run out of appeals, so we can't assume that they're guilty.

C: What can we do to defend ourselves from attack?

D: Converting to Islam is a possibility.

C: If we do nothing, we might not be allowed to make that choice willingly.

D: Nonsense! Islam is a religion of peace!

C: The Sunni and Shiite attacks on each other in Iraq and Pakistan are proof that that's not a safe option. They're throwing suicide bombers at other sects of Islam even as they send them at our allies and us.

D: That's a trivial detail. They hate us because we're oppressing them.

C: How are we oppressing them?

D: We're buying their oil!

C: How is that oppressing them?

D: We're bringing capitalism to their socialist dictatorships. Democracy could only be around the corner if that continued.

C: Then how do we stop oppressing them?

D: We should stop buying their oil.

C: Then how will we keep our economy going?

D: We won't. That's part of the beauty of it. We would just do nothing. No oil imports. No problems.

C: Our economy would stall -

D: More Democratic votes.

C: We'd see the transportation network grind to a stop -

D: More people doing nothing, and that would save the environment, too.

C: Shouldn't we build more power plants here, then, to reduce dependence on their oil?

D: Oh, no.

C: Why not?

D: That costs too much.

C: Per your arguments, it would reduce the terrorist motivations.

D: Yes, but it would provide jobs and power. We can't do that.

C: So you vote to turn off the oil imports and to not bother with a replacement fuel source?

D: Of course! Doing nothing about the supply or the demand issues would bring the whole nation to a stop! Imagine it! Everyone doing nothing ... except being motivated to vote for us because we can solve the crisis!

You know, I am reminded of how some of those who were involved in "Black Hawk Down" responded about the fact that Clinton withdrew before they were ready! Some did not have good things to say about that! So, yes, I think you are correct.

I also like your comment,"We did in Afghanistan in months what Russia could not do in a decade." Thank you for reminding us!

Also, we need to remember how quickly we got into Iraq. I still say it was "Shock-n-Awe." Do people have any concept of how much desert had to be crossed to get to Bagdad? Even the Iraqi Minister of (dis)Information, was so shocked he didn't even know we were there yet! Isn't that awesome? I am constantly awed by our military capabilities. And we must not forget those of our allies who stood with our people!

Thanks John for the article. I sure hope we see more of this kind of support.

To me there is one major fact missing from this article. I refer to this portion:

Because I live in New York, I rarely get to hear the voice of this majority. Instead, I get magazines such as Vanity Fair, which last month had a column by the editor angrily listing statistics from the war in Iraq. Such as: ............. Number of weapons of mass destruction found: 0.

How many UN resolutions did Saddam violate?

We have not found "fully operational" WMD, but that does not mean he did not have the ingredients to make them. We do not have to "find" them. He was suppose to tell the world what he did with the ingredients. He did not! Has he buried them? Has he sold them to some terrorist organization? Where are they? I for one do not believe so many intelligence agencies are wrong!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.