A Canadian Bush Backer Speaks Out

Recently I got into a discussion with a few Canadian friends about the Bush victory in the 2004 Presidential election and the ongoing war in Iraq. These friends are well educated and cultured people with a preference for European wine and movies with sub-titles. I suppose they could be described as middle-of-the-road liberals and made for pleasant company at dinner over a bottle of Beaujolais Nouveau ... at least until the subject of George W. Bush came up.

Their reaction to the re-election of the President was unequivocal. Choice of language included adjectives such as "dreadful", "shocking", "appalling" and even "bizarre". Their self-righteousness was more akin to arch inquisitors passing judgement on a proven devil worshiper, rather than dinner companions airing views on a President of the United States.

When I offered a contrary opinion, there was a hush and eyes widened with genuine horror - as though the late hour had induced the first physical evidence of my ‘werewolf within’. One of them even said - "are you feeling alright Aidan?"

You see, I’m one of those anomalies in the Canadian dominion - a Bush backer. A partiality that induces some of my fellow citizens to regard me as ... if not exactly a brown shirt ... then at the very least a tan shirt.

In the majority of Canadian minds the standard Bush caricature reigns supreme; the idiot cowboy with his finger on the trigger of the greatest arsenal of weapons ever assembled in the history of mankind. They buy the stereotype of the phonetically challenged goofy guy with big ears who would seem more at home eating beans under a starry sky than sitting behind a desk in the Oval Office. So why don’t I see this also? Is it possible that an emissary of Karl Rove has slipped a President enhancing drug into our rural Ontario well?

I’ve always been a little suspicious of iconic Presidents. Clinton for example, with his majestic white mane and inclusive body language; master of the language and equally at home with an Ohio pig farmer and the head of the PLO. Reagan with his star appeal and charming malapropisms; shielded from accusations of idiocy by his transcendental belief in "the good" as personified by America. These legendary Presidents almost compelled belief by sheer force of presence. Something the reverend Sun Myung Moon is also rather good at doing.

He reminds us of a guy we might encounter at the local sports bar or rub shoulders with in the bleachers during a ball game. Like most of us run-of-the-mill humans he screws up from time to time, mangles his grammar and even chokes on food at inopportune moments. He has daughters who have been known to act out and a wife who holds it all together with a stoicism that is instantly recognizable to those of us with an appreciation for self effacing, strong willed matriarchs. George is simply 'that guy'... the only difference being that he also happens to be President of the greatest superpower in the history of the planet.

In internet chat rooms and when talking with friends, Bush backers like myself are constantly accosted with the idiot word. "Bush is an idiot" has probably been recited more times than the Hare Krishna mantra, and yet despite a stratosphere that reverberates with the "Bush is an idiot" echo, I don’t buy it.

My reluctance to give the nod to the ‘Bush as idiot’ consensus doesn’t reflect either willfulness or perversity. When I observe Bush speaking off-the-cuff to reporters I see a guy with a folksy style who addresses the issues in a direct down-to-earth fashion. There are occasional moments of levity when he upstages a journalist or offers a witticism or two. Clearly this is a regular guy talking and not an icon, and therein lies the offence. For some, Bush is simply too human and they wonder how a President who looks and sounds like the guy next door, can ever be relied upon to do and say the right thing. But to leap from that assumption to the conclusion that Bush is therefore an idiot, is facile in the extreme.

After 9/11 he rallied Americans with his down-home appeals to the nation. When he stood on the smouldering debris of the towers with an arm around a fireman and spoke into a megaphone, he was one of us ... a surrogate doing what we all wanted to do most ... reach out to a nation reeling in a time of crisis.

When he made speeches at the U.N. and at military academies around the country, his words were of course scripted ... and yet there was nothing about either his diction or his delivery that was suggestive of an idiot. He speaks well, despite the occasional mangled word, and sometimes even speaks with energized power and conviction. All of which makes the ‘idiot fixation’ such an odd phenomenon.

Of course, these detractors will argue that going into Iraq was idiotic and will predictably cite the non-discovery of WMD as proof positive of idiocy. According to them Bush was acting from the most venal of motives; indulging his appetite for a personal vendetta and sacrificing young lives on the alter of his ego. For some reason these detractors feel more inclined to call Bush’s motives into question, rather than examine the despicable nature of the Iraqi regime and the long term consequences of leaving Saddam in power.

The entire world, and maybe even Saddam himself, believed erroneously that the regime was in possession of large stockpiles of proscribed weaponry, so when the larder was fond to be bare it prompted many to accuse the Bush administration of leading the everyone up the garden path. The compelling information that has surfaced concerning links between Saddam’s Baa’thist regime and Al Qaeda is simply disregarded by the President’s detractors. The genocidal excesses and expansionist tendencies of the Iraqi regime are similarly overlooked. Saddam’s funding of suicide bombers is disregarded, as is the presence in pre-invasion Baghdad of that most sinister of terrorist godfathers ... Abu Nidal.

In her book The War Against America, Laurie Mylroie claims that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was captured in Pakistan, may not in fact be Kuwaiti as he claims, but rather an Iraqi agent. Since Mohammed was an Al Qaeda operational leader, this information could well create direct ties between Iraq and the 9/11 New York attack, and so has important implications. Yet even such potentially damning information fails to move the die hard ‘idiot brigade’ who see in the person of Bush an atrocity that far exceeds even the rape room activities and genocidal excesses of the Baa’thists.

This odd fixation with Dubya’s inner idiot is compounded by the latter’s candid admission that he is a man of faith. Liberals by and large become alarmed at the prospect of God insinuating his way into the affairs of state. Some like Ann Coulter, have argued that this aversion is due to liberals devotion to the 'golden cow' of political correctness - something akin to a secular religion in and of itself. Coulter points out that while hundreds of references to the "Christian conservatives" and "religious right" occur in the New York Times, a Lexis-Nexis search of the entire New York Times archive did not succeed in unearthing even a single reference to "atheist liberals" or "the atheist left". Her not unreasonable conclusion, is that demeaning references are reserved for entities to the right of center.

Unlike his predecessors in the Oval Office who kept matters of personal faith in the closet, Bush has the temerity to refer candidly to God as if He actually exists and doesn’t hesitate to characterize terrorism and the states that support it as evil. Such candor is deeply disturbing to those liberals who view God as a type of quaint metaphor that nobody in the final analysis, takes seriously. Such Presidential utterances shocks them deeply - in much the way the psychiatric nurse was shocked by the ravings of the Jack Nicholson character in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

In attempting to get to the roots of the knee jerk tendency to characterize the President as an idiot, I must also make some reference to ‘the line’.

There are some lines, such as union picket lines, that right wingers cross at risk of death and dismemberment. Even though all of the evidence and the call of destiny might necessitate the crossing of a non-negotiable line, the actually crossing of it brings unforseen consequences. Bill Clinton knew this very well. So while he was prepared to make shows of American military power by bombing a factory in the Sudan and ordering an air campaign in Kosovo, he was too much of a liberal to cross the scariest line of all. When Al Qaeda began testing the American will with bombings in the Middle East, most notably the attack on the USS Cole, the Clinton administration declined to act. Even when Dick Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, counseled a bombing campaign against terror camps in Afghanistan, the administration twiddled it’s thumbs and deferred. Opening a front with Al Qaeda was a scary line to cross and Bill Clinton wasn’t about to fire up the arab world and ruin fun times at home, let alone turn himself into a potential target for assassination.

The task of crossing that line fell to George W. Bush, and once he stepped over the line with the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq - all hell, as they say, broke loose. The Iraq attack in particular, in the eyes of many liberals was the act of an idiot. To others, it demonstrated tremendous courage and a willingness to defend the United States at any price. The jury is still out, debating the final verdict. As Jacques Chirac recently remarked ..."history will judge". Of course, it’s easy to play the proctor when you are comfortably ensconced on the sidelines sipping a pernod.

The reflex tendency to dismiss Bush as an idiot trivializes the very real threat of international terrorism. The demonizing of the USA and it’s President simply provides a pillow for the enemy who are greatly comforted by the sight of the western media reducing America to a loathsome caricature.

In the final analysis, war polarizes and compels people to choose sides. The Bush detractors in N. America are operating in shrinking neutral territory. When the final verdict comes in, they may well find themselves further out to sea than they had ever dreamed possible.

I’m not sure how familiar you are with Free Republic, but since you’ve shown up – I’ll respond to your post. I’m more hopeful and optimistic that you are. You seem like you’ve already given up – saying that Osama has won and we’ve lost our freedoms, etc. And you don’t have your facts right about the number of civilian deaths. Around here you need to *prove* statements like that - not just blithely make them. It’s my understanding that there have been somewhere around 10,000 – 15,000 civilians killed.

I think that there are decent people who opposed the war. And I think that there are vile folks like Michael Moore and the kind who are violent and hateful at anti-war rallies. I’m sure you know who I mean.

The war to take out Saddam became inevitable, imo, when countries like France and Canada made it clear that they would never cooperate or support us. France, of course, it turned out was raking in the dough through the Oil-for-Food scandal and wanted to keep Saddam in power. So war became inevitable and we have lost some of our best and bravest...which is tragic. I hold a grudge against countries like France and Canada because with their support – war could have been avoided.

Your post about your class and your debate with three sides of the Iraq issue is interesting. But I don’t think it’s helpful. The decision was made and the war is underway. What is needed now is support for the war. What is needed now are people who can make a difference in creating success in Iraq.

Debates about what should or should not have been done can be real interesting – especially to the debaters – but now that we are there, those who opposed the war (for whatever reasons) need to get on-board, imo, and help us succeed.

Also, I don’t think you are necessarily correct about Arabs. I think that as Afghanistan succeeds, as Iraq succeeds, as the election takes place (which I’m sure that it will), as Palestinians elect a new leader, change will be accepted. I agree with President Bush – there is a natural yearning in the human heart for freedom. What we are doing in Iraq is removing the obstacles so that the Iraqis can establish their own government.

Stick around and be a part of something that is beautiful and good because that’s what’s happening…Afghanistan and Iraq are places of tremendous change and the change is better for all of us.

I and TXrangerette and Sunsong are the only ones who replied to your posting above. And I thought that all 3 of us were pretty reasonable in our responses. So if you truly want a dialog here, you can have one. For instance, you could start by backing up your original assertion of "tens of thousands" of women/children/elderly killed by citing some credible references, seeing as how we have challenged you on that statement.

But somehow I suspect you never had any intention of carrying on a meaningful dialog. Am I right? Your response to us - including such lines as, "You folks are filled with hatred" or "I would still risk my life to save any of you .... [but] I get the feeling you would let me die" tells me a different story. It makes me suspect that you just want to play the role of "victim," and this need is strong enough that you will sign in to a conservative forum and identify yourself as a "liberal democrat" in the hopes that someone will yell at you and insult you so that you can copy/paste it into an email to your friends and say, "See? Look! I've been victimized! By those hate-filled conservatives we've been warned about!"

But when nobody here would say the nasty things you expected us to say, you decided to play the victim anyway and grossly distort what we said to you. So the bottom line is that it didn't really matter what we said, did it? You were determined to find "hatred" in us, so when it wasn't in the lines, you just went ahead and read it between the lines.

You're welcome to prove me wrong.

You are correct. I apologize, and have little excuse for my emotional reply, so I won't attempt one. As for tens of thousands of civilians killed, there is an estimate of 100,000 killed in Iraq since the beginning of thw invasion. Logic would dictate that a percentage of them are civilians, and a percentage women and childre. It was my brother, who is in Mosul, who estimated 10-20% civilian deaths, from the bombings. Have you seen the pictures of the injured babies? There are scores of them. I will come back with the most credible refernce I can find, but it will be hard considering the policy to not disclose the numbers (for obvious political reasons, justv like the decision not to show burials or caskets). My brothertold me that Bush has not attended a funeral yet. I do not know if that is true or not.

Since the US government has chosen not to count (or release the count) of Iraqi deaths, how can anyone substantiate any number? We cannot. Let me rephrase my comment: Women, children and elderly civiliansd have died as a result of American bombs and bullets. I know our Army would never deliberately target civlians, but they are caught in the crossfire, they are killed by the bombs, it is unavoidable.
I would have preferred a unilateral invasion as a last resort, we can disagree forever whether it was one or not. I believe not.

I stand by my opinion that liberals and conservatives need to bridge the gap, mend fences as best possible, because we are all Americans, and both sides are comprised of many decent and good patriots, as both sides have boneheads too.

I did a very poor job so far, please do not let my emotional outburst reflect on other liberals. BTW: My car, with many bumperstickers, was firebombed a year ago (with a jumo roman candle lit and placed in the front seat and a Bush/Cheney sticker put on the window), it was then attacked 6 times with a paint-gun (I just washed it off), and my house has been egged. I have been spat upon, told to get a job, get a life, called a communist, a socialist, a lesbian, and a traitor... by right wing conservatives. Most of this happened while I was standing at a silent vigil, some when I standing in front of the federal building.

That does not condone or excuse my outburst to ya'll, but it is the reason I am so wound-up and defensive.
It was totally unfair of me to dump on you folks the way I did because of the things I have read and seen on other conservative right wing republican sites, or for the threatening and terrible treatment I have recieved by other individuals of that persuasion, and I deeply regret my words to you. I thank you for your calm and reasoned response. Have you seen the critique of your site at: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/12/27/173837/60

Thak you for not erasing me, you may think me a wing-nut, but I am a fellow American who walks my talk, loves my country, and have 3 kids of draft age. I have never missed an election, support the troops competely, and strongly disagree with president Bush's policies. I hae knitted 7 red, white and blue afghans and sent them to my brother to distribute among his comrades. My brother strongly opposes the policy of the Iraq War too, btw. He feels we/he has no business there, and that we have already lost the war. He follows orders, does his duty, and is risking his life.

Peace and justice, Vivian-

Sunsong, I had in my last post rephrased the statement to say simply that civilians have died. I have apologized for my response, perhaps I should go further and apologize for my previous numbers. I apologize for my previous numbers.

You imply that conservatives are the only truth seekers. I hope that is not what you meant, I believe there are truth seekers on both sides, and that sweeping generalizations are incorrect regardless of who makes them. Perhaps I have taken the statement wrongly, if so, then hell, I apologize for that too. Some day maybe someone will respond to me in a conciliatory tone, after the lengths I have gone to to humble myself and attempt to make sincere ammends. I am not playing victim, I am just being a human being with a sincere desire to make some peace with my fellow Americans, regardless of political affiliations.

There are pictures all over the world. Have you seen the news in Europe, or Asia, or South America? It is only in the USA that pictures of civilian casualties do not make it on the evening news. I am not suggesting that there are tens of thousands, just thousands.

I ill not give up my attemps at dialogue with folks on the other side of the fence. There is too much at stake. I want to be able to tell my children that I tried to reach out, to understand, and to bridge the divide in some fashion for their future, and for the future of the greatest country in the history of the world. The terrorists love the division in America. I do not want to give them that satisfaction.

Regards, DF-

Here is what you said:

As for tens of thousands of civilians killed, there is an estimate of 100,000 killed in Iraq since the beginning of thw invasion. Logic would dictate that a percentage of them are civilians, and a percentage women and childre. It was my brother, who is in Mosul, who estimated 10-20% civilian deaths, from the bombings.

And I repeat, the leftwing proganda group putting out the lie about 100,000 civilians deaths has been discredited. So, I would suggest, it was not helpful in any way to bring it up. It is not acceptable to conservatives to tell us about “estimates” or “guesses” or what someone you know said. Conservatives are interested in facts. They are truth seekers as a rule.

It is not helpful to assume that when I say that conservatives are truth seekers, I am implying anything. But it would be helpful if you take that seriously, since you have entered a “conservative” website. Please be respectful of those here and do not make assertions that you cannot back up with facts. For instance what you say here:

There are pictures all over the world. Have you seen the news in Europe, or Asia, or South America? It is only in the USA that pictures of civilian casualties do not make it on the evening news. I am not suggesting that there are tens of thousands, just thousands.

Perhaps you have not been at Free Republic long or you would know that all kinds of international news is posted here. We are familiar with Foreign news sites. There are no pictures that give evidence of thousands of civilians casualties, which is what you claimed – and what you seem to be continuing to. I have written to you already about your pessimism amd doom and gloom attitude. I think you are way off base with your negativity. I think that the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq are beautiful and good acts of a good and decent country. And I think that the future for millions of people is now much, much more hopeful because of the policies of President Bush.

I ill not give up my attemps at dialogue with folks on the other side of the fence. There is too much at stake. I want to be able to tell my children that I tried to reach out, to understand, and to bridge the divide in some fashion for their future, and for the future of the greatest country in the history of the world. The terrorists love the division in America. I do not want to give them that satisfaction.

I repeat myself. But perhaps in the repeating, it will have more meaning to you. If you honestly want to dialogue with conservatives – take care to tell the truth – take care to have facts to back up your assertions and show respect for the conservative point of view. Then you will find that people will respond favorably to you.

Good luck

Sunsong, although I may have blown my opportunity at the starting gate, I have a heartfelt desire to engage in productive discourse with "red state" folks like yourself.
I most likely will need the good luck you wished me after my poor performance. I do have numerous pictures of limbless, burned and bandaged babies. They do exist, and I would ask for an understanding that I am concerned about my brother's life, and equally concerned with the civilian casualties that are undeniably collateral damage from war, this "war" is no exception.

Of course Blair, today, opposed a review of civilian deaths:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-12/08/content_2310397.htm \

A group of ex-diplomats, military men and academics has called on Tony Blair to hold an inquiry into civilian deaths in Iraq. They say the UK has a duty enshrined in international law to record the deaths: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4079059.stm

Here are some places you can read about the other perspectives on the war from Iraqi and other journalists reporters http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=30

Would one presume to claim that the Red Cross is just a bunch of whiney liberals? They put their lives on the line to do the work of Christ in the worst spots all over the globe. They are highly critical of both the abuses at Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq that have inflamed global opinions of the US: http://www.wpherald.com/Human_Rights/storyview.php?StoryID=20041201-101827-6199r

Over 1,200 American soldiers have died in Iraq. The official count of the wounded is 8,956, though unofficial estimates almost double this, putting the total at between 15,000 and 17,000. The Iraqi casualties, of course, are far higher. A group of independent American and British researchers, Iraq Body Count, having collated published figures, puts the number of Iraqi dead between 14,454 and 16,604, but acknowledges that since they require stringent proof for every mortality, their total “is certain to be an underestimate.” It was the renowned British medical journal The Lancet published a study estimating civilian deaths at over 100,000. That study was conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland and the College of Medicine at Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, using sophisticated modern statistical sampling of overall mortality figures. But I guess you will dismiss them as lunatic liberals manifesting those numbers out of thin air.

Health service in Iraq is dismal as well: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-12/01/content_2280305.htm

I could go on. To suggest that there is only one valid perspective is to be in denial of the complexity of these issues and the extensive plethora of data and facts that are out there for all to see.

I hope that I have done a slightly better job at offering my viewpoint in something other than my disgusting emotional outburst that I will probably never live down to you folks. Believe it or not, I am sincere in healing some of the wounds betwen both camps. This is probably not the place for it, but as long as you folks allow me to communicate with you I will attempt to do so in a respectful & factual manner. This is your site, and it could be said that I am intruding. I appreciate you coninuing the discourse with me, and I wish you and your loved ones good health, and a very happy holiday season, sincerely.

God bless, Viv-

more: At a minimum, Bush is responsible for between 14,619 and 16,804 Iraqi civilian deaths during the 21 months since the invasion. Compiled from hospital, morgue, and media reports, these figures understate civilian deaths. In keeping with Islam's quick burial requirement, many Iraqis were buried in sports fields and in back gardens during protracted U.S. assaults on urban areas. The British medical journal, The Lancet, (medical journal a liberal propaganda machine?) estimates that 100,000 Iraqis have been killed since March 20, 2003. This figure does not include the large number of Iraqi deaths from the embargo and U.S. bombing for more than a decade prior to the U.S. invasion, however.

Projecting the reported Iraqi civilian deaths for four more years of U.S. occupation produces a figure of 51,621 civilians killed as "collateral damage." Projecting The Lancet's figure produces a figure of 328,571 civilian deaths by the end of Bush's second term, but let's not go with just the lancet.

Then there are the civilian injured, for which there appear to be no figures. If we assume the same ratio of killed to wounded for civilian deaths as holds for the U.S. military, the reported death figure gives a civilian wounded figure of 392,320. The Lancet estimate gives a wounded figure of 2,497,139. So I am fine with foregoing the Lancet figures. Either way, there are a heck of a lot of civilian causalties.

'I would still risk my life to save any of you if the situation presnted the opportunity.I get the feeling you would let me die.'

Now that is an odd statement. I wouldn't know you were a lib in a situation like that. So as a conservative I'm just a coward? Hateful would be throwing you back AFTER finding out you are a lib.

'You are correct. I apologize, and have little excuse for my emotional reply, so I won't attempt one. '

Try anyway. Would show you are sincere and not a 'bomb thrower.'

During the campaign did you speak out about the excesses of the Left? If not, you are similar to the Muslims who don't condemn violence. Words have effects.

If you are really interested in mending America, you have to stop spouting the propaganda of the Left.

'As for the tens of thousdands of civilian deaths, are you really denying it? At least tell my why it is worth it, that war has a cost, that it is for our freedom.'

Not denying deaths, but to think there would be no civilian casualties in a high intensity conflict is foolish. By the way, how do you know who were 'civilians'. They are having a tough time now. Consequence free conflict and casualty free war are not realistic ideas. Reality awaits you.

And it wasn't for freedom necessarily, but for your security to have freedom.

How much longer will we have to wait for the world to right itself?

It won't, so get used to it.

Americans are driven to be the best and most powerful but we really don't want to do anything with it except be left to happily toddle on our merry way.

World domination? Who needs it? We have more interesting things to do.

The world doesn't get it because they don't think that way. If they had half the power we did they would use it for..well...taking over the world. That is the way "normal" people think.

We don't think like that but it doesn't stop them from being terrified that we will. We are in their eyes a very real and present danger because we must want to take over. Indeed, we must. And everything they see is through that distorted prism.

So Saddam must be backed because he provided a "check on American Power." Except of course he didn't and bit by bit we are squashing those who mean us harm like bugs. (which they quite understand) and then re-build what we messed up in the bug hunt and walk away. At that point smoke begins pouring out of their ears. They don't get it. So it must be part of some evil American plot to take over the world because that must be our goal.

Anything else is unthinkable.

I am a liberal democrat, and I feel that Osama has won...

Feelings nothing more then Feeeelings

We have abdicated many freedoms

Name three.

our country is divided and Americans are at odds with each other,

Then quit dividing. And we have always been at odds with each other. You did read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers didn't you?

and American forces have invaded a sovereign nation

You would prefer we invaded an dependent nation?

and our boms have killed or maimed tens of thousands women, elderly and infant civilians.

Which was ok under Clinton but not now. (PS your statistics are off by a magnitude of ten)

I detest Saddam, Osama and I condemn the Palestinian suicide bombers.

And I should buy that because....?

I just disagree with the method by which we have toppled saddam.

Why yes we should have just continued to let him shoot at our pilots. I can see how that would be just peachy with you.

But what is more important, is I understand that you are all my fellow Americans, and my neighbors.

And I should believe that because....of the brother love you have shown? Hmmmm?

We work in the same businesses, shop in the same stores, live next to each other.

Finally a bit of truth.

The insults, denigration, name calling and put downs hurt our country.

Funny that it never bothered you before.

I work, have children, pay my taxes, I love America.

The last is a bit doubtful. Maybe it depends on what the meaning of the word love is.

I am not your enemy, democrats are not the terrorists amd do not support them.

That was why you protested when Clinton pardoned a bunch of terrorists, right?

We need to bridge the divide.

And once again I must comment on the strange fact that that never bothered you before. One might be forgiven for thinking that you had an agenda.

We are actually all on the same side, we just disagree on how to go about defending and running our nation.

I hate to break it to you but that is not being on the same side.

But if I saw you in a wreck on the side of the road, or in a burning building, I would risk my life to save you. I think you would do the same for me, I hope so anyway.

Nice dream isn't it? Why do I doubt you doing any such thing?

We are all good decent people.

Except for those that are trying to get as many Americans killed as possible. That would be your side I believe.

I refuse to hate my fellow countrymen.

But support policies that would get more of us killed. Your idea of hate is nearly as strange as your idea of love.

That is our biggest defeat.

Hating Evil?

Yes, I can see where it would be easier for you if we didn't.

Sunsong, although I may have blown my opportunity at the starting gate, I have a heartfelt desire to engage in productive discourse with "red state" folks like yourself.

So you say over and over. And yes, you have blown your opportunity and continue to. You are bombing here, dragginfly, and I wouldn’t be surprised if you are banned in the not too distant future. It’s like you absolutely refuse to listen. You cannot have a “productive” discussion if you are unwilling to listen.

I wonder how many times I need to say that your doom and gloom negativity is not helpful before you will stop it? And your back and forth on whether or not you are sorry and your continued focus on civilian deaths is not helpful. And it is not helpful “if” and that it the question here – “if” you want to bridge the divide. Please answer this question, dragginfly – how do you see it as reaching out to us conservatives on this conservative site( that you have indeed “intruded” on) – how do you see it as reaching out to us to talk about civilian deaths in Iraq? And how do you see it as reaching out to us to continually site bogus numbers that are used by such hateful and dishonest organizations as ANSWER and al Jazeera?

There are somewhere around 15,000 known civilian deaths. How many civilians were dying each month under Saddam’s regime, dragginfly? Do you even know? How you ever bothered to check? Were you even the slightest bit interested?

What is your opinion of the 70,000 civilians dead so far in Sudan? Why is that not a higher priority for you than Iraq?

I most likely will need the good luck you wished me after my poor performance. I do have numerous pictures of limbless, burned and bandaged babies. They do exist, and I would ask for an understanding that I am concerned about my brother's life, and equally concerned with the civilian casualties that are undeniably collateral damage from war, this "war" is no exception.

Is it possible for you to pay attention to what is written to you? I said that there are no pictures showing thousands of dead civilians and you come back and say that there are pictures of a few civilian deaths. What does your statement have to do with what I said to you?

Are you aware of the nature of war? Do you realize that people, including civilians, die in war? Are you aware of the number of people that Saddam Hussein killed?

Would one presume to claim that the Red Cross is just a bunch of whiney liberals?

The Internaitonal Red Cross is anti-American. How is it that you do not know that? The American Red Cross is a good organization. The International Red Cross is not.

Please read an absorb this statement: it is not helpful for you to come onto a conservative site and spout off with anti-American sources. Can you see that?

. A group of independent American and British researchers, Iraq Body Count, having collated published figures, puts the number of Iraqi dead between 14,454 and 16,604, but acknowledges that since they require stringent proof for every mortality, their total “is certain to be an underestimate.”

Again, I ask you – is it possible for you to pay attention to what is written to you. I have already sited this group. And I think it is the right thing to do to require “proof” of death. Are you honestly trying to say that it is not? The Lancet group used interviews – of what they called random groups and then multiplied the number they got to come up with their bogus claim of 100,000. There is nothing credible about it. It is used by al Jazeera and ANSWER – both groups have no credibility.

This is probably not the place for it, but as long as you folks allow me to communicate with you I will attempt to do so in a respectful & factual manner. This is your site, and it could be said that I am intruding. I appreciate you coninuing the discourse with me, and I wish you and your loved ones good health, and a very happy holiday season, sincerely.

Boy oh boy, do you have a problem with telling the truth or what? You “are” intruding. This “is” a conservative site. I’m sure that you know that. Why in the world would you say something so lame as “it could be said that I am intruding”?

Jeez, as I say – you are bombing here. It is my opinion that if you had really wanted to have a productive conversation with a “red stater” – then you would have. You can tell a person's intention by the result that they get, imo. And look at the result you have gotten

Here's a recap of the advice I've given you so far:

1. optimism vs pessimism
2. facts
3. talking about civilian deaths is not helpful
4. there are good and bad people who opposed the war
5. the 100,000 deaths figure has been discredited
6. we are familiar with “other” sources of info and foreign sites
7. listen to what is said to you

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.