A Wake-Up Call to The Senate

Here's my first real post, so I hope it works out.

A church friend of my spouse sent a pointer to this Balt. Sun op-ed to many people, claiming it was just "common sense." To his credit, he at least identified himself as a die-hard Democrat.

I took the opportunity of responding to him and the whole list with the following reply, and then appended the wrenching article (found elsewhere on FR) for good measure:

"Iraq's poisoned babies have turned me into a hawk" The Daily Telegraph ^ | February 27, 2003 | Julius Strauss

One of the 3rd party recipients already replied to my reply with words of encouragement. Here was my reply:

Dear XXX,

Nothing personal, but my wife and I are die-hard Republicans, so you'll forgive me if I take the liberty of intercepting and answering your mail, so that you need not hold [my wife] in lesser esteem, but may direct your ire and eye rolling at me.

I took the opportunity to avail myself of your suggestion to read the editorial of Sen. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klansman, who failed to do his constitutional duty during the 1999 impeachment trial, and has used overtly racist language on television as recently as last year. These character defects aside, I found his editorial unconvincing.

First, he refers to the upcoming military action as preemption. I beg to differ, as the contemplated action is a direct result of a violated cease fire signed in 1991. That the former President failed to address these issues in a more satisfactory manner, just kicking the can down the road as it were, is the reason that it is taking 12 years to address.

The Senator criticizes the failure of the administration to "take nuclear weapons off the table." While each is entitled to his opinion, I think it foolish to tie one's hand behind one's diplomatic back, when we are dealing with a potential chemical, biological or nuclear attack from Mr. Hussein. I think an unleashing of smallpox that kills millions of American, perhaps billions worldwide, would warrant at least the consideration of a nuclear retaliation.

Sen. Byrd cites huge cracks in the coalition. The Democrats love to portray this issue as unilateral. But as President Bush cited last evening in his address, the coalition is 90 countries large. And while you may be shocked to see it, I am fully expecting much of this discord to be the product of a preplanned strategic deception on the part of the Allies, so as to heighten our chances to successfully disarm Mr. Hussein of his terrible weapons, before he has a chance to wise up and react. Time will tell if my hunch has merit.

He complains that military family members don't know the whereabouts or duration of their spouses deployment. I say Amen to that. While trying for the military families, they are no doubt handling it better than Sen. Byrd. The old adage "Loose lips sink ships" is as true today as it was in the first World War.

Senator Byrd complains that we have failed to capture Osama bin Laden. But it was these same Democrats who, on the eve of going into Afghanistan after 9/11 decried the strategy because "going after Osama isn't going to solve the war on terror." President Bush has made it clear from the week following 9/11 that he intends to "deal with the terrorists and the nations that harbor and support them." Everything he has done since then has been living up to that pledge in a consistent fashion.

Senator Byrd uses inflammatory rhetoric, suggesting that because Afghanistan isn't completely democratized at this point, that somehow this means that our President has failed. That our forces are thin (thanks to the preceding President), even though the coalition is 90 countries large. Admittedly, not all are sending troops, but I have great faith in our military's ability to successfully address the issue. He suggests that we will become an occupying power, even though every experience that America has to offer in its history speaks to the contrary. Are Germany and France "occupied" by the US? One look at the UN Security Council says otherwise. He calls the administration reckless and arrogant, though I think he confuses "arrogant" for "determined." While the last administration stuck its finger in the air and reckoned which way public opinion was blowing, the current administration is willing to pursue what it sees as best for the nation, even if that path is rocky. Let's face it, Leaders lead.

He calls the upcoming war the administration's "first choice", and yet many grow impatient over the opportunity after opportunity that this administration is providing Mr. Hussein to comply. Impatient because when it comes to war, a lost element of surprise can cost dearly in blood. This war has been under discussion since last summer, and has gotten affirmative votes from the Senate (a must have) and an affirmative November vote from the UN (nice to have, but not necessary). It is hard to characterize this war as the administration's "first choice."

Senator Byrd questions the choice of fighting a country that is over 50% children. As you'll see in the article I forward, the reason for that is that Mr. Hussein has exterminated many male adults who might represent a threat to him.

In summary, I find Senator Byrd's commentary to be reminiscent of his former generation... that of Neville Chamberlain.

While we are all free to have our opinions, it is mine that our ability to live in a country, where such a difference of opinion between us is possible, only exists because past American leaders have had the courage to confront Evil, and soldiers of this nation were willing to spill their blood as sacrifice for us all, to protect that liberty.

yours in Christ, XEHRpa

p.s. The Daily Telegraph, from which the following article comes, is a London UK based newspaper.

Excellent response and welcome aboard!

Great response and a great BIG BUMP TO YA!

I'm glad someone said what needed to be said to that ole coot Byrd.

Thank you

This (with an additional couple of paragraphs) was passed out at my sister's Lutheran church and has created quite a stir. The one she got was printed from a progressive Democratic site. I am wondering about what kind of an organized effort to get this opinion piece out.

Has anyone else see it?

Thanks, all, for the welcome. I've lurked for years (see profile), but decided I had to get onboard on or before Freeper #100K.

Sorry about the errors. My questions were about the organized effort to distribute this, and if anyone else has seen it from other sources.

My wife's church (from whence the msg originated) is RC. I'm Lutheran ELCA. I sure hope she doesn't open a can of whoop-ass on me when she finds I replied to one of her parishioners. It was reflexive. Incidentally, her Monsignior, with whom I have a good relation, was on the distribution.

Interesting. I am going to share your response with my sister who is still reeling (there were several articles passed out, very negative about Bush, not simply pacifist type information).

The old coot's so senile he drools. The edit was probably written by his son-in-law Mohammed.

WOW!!!!...."Welcome" to FR!!...I did the "lurking" thing also before finally signing in, but I don't believe my FR "entrance" was even close to yours in content and thought!!

A "Great first post" BUMP!!!!

Welcome and thanks for your great response - I'm sure many of us will be using it!