Posted on 03/14/2003 12:15:10 PM PST by lloydwdudley
Dear Barbra Streisand:
Even as we prepare to do battle with an unrelenting enemy, you and the rest of the Hollywood Left continue your crusade against George W. Bush. It's just about time you knock it off. I understand you don't like him, Ms. Streisand, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to make things impossible for him diplomatically. Yet that's what you've done.
Your insistence that Bush is as bad as the Butcher of Baghdad has only fed into anti-American sentiment abroad. The First Amendment guarantees you can voice your disingenuous opinions, Ms. Streisand, but it doesn't change the fact that you're fast becoming an ulcer in the stomach of our free society.
I'm going to do you a favor, though. Not only have I read your essay on barbrastreisand.com, called "Some Questions to Think About," but I've also thought about said questions and decided to answer them for you. My answers are below...
1. How many body bags does the military expect to send home to America?
That depends. Are we counting the knuckleheaded human shield convoys that are headed to Iraq like flies to a bug zapper on a warm summer's night? Or are we counting just the soldiers whose efforts the human shields want to thwart? For argument's sake, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt -- by the way, try it sometime -- by assuming you mean only the soldiers. In that case, if our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are any indication, then the answer is not many -- even then, what soldiers we lose will be by friendly fire.
Of course, one soldier lost is more than enough -- I'll concede you that, if that's what you're getting at. But if you really cared about them, and if you really cared about what they stand for -- that being Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- then you'd understand that our soldiers have a job to do on your behalf and mine. Unfortunate as the truth may be, sometimes, sadly, no body count can possibly contend with the sheer value of the freedoms our enemies want to destroy.
You don't seem to understand that. You seem to think there's nothing in this world worth fighting for. Tell that to George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, Ms. Streisand. I'm sure they'd all disagree.
2. What is the cost of the war in billions of dollars? (one advisor to the president estimates the war would cost up to $200 billion.)
What's the matter? Haven't you got the money? What with all those multi-platinum albums of yours, I'd bet you could probably afford most of this war on your own. Or is it that you don't want the federal government putting your money towards causes you don't agree with? Now you know how it feels, Ms. Streisand. Now you know how it feels.
Is this a rhetorical question? I'm willing to bet you had your answer before you even asked. Your answer was: Too Much.
3. Are there estimates for how long American troops would have to stay there?
Yes, and our current estimate is: As long as it takes.
If our troops moved in and out in no time, you'd complain that we leveled Iraq and left them to fend for themselves. But if our troops stayed there forever, you'd complain that we're an occupying power.
Look at Afghanistan. Look at Hamid Karzai and the respect he receives. Granted, between all the petty warlords and restless former Taliban, Afghanistan's still got a ways to go before it achieves full stability, but it's nothing like it was two years ago.
Of course, I could be jumping to conclusions here. I mean, I think nation-building is at the heart of this question, but I don't know for sure. Is it presumptuous to think that you want our soldiers back soon so you can call them the bane of the world's existence to their faces? Or did I already cover your intense dislike for our military in my answer to your first question?
4. What are the costs in civilian lives and social and environmental destruction (i.e. is Saddam going to burn oil fields again)?
How is this one question? I know you take the name Mother Earth literally, and I know you would've respected her decision to abort you, but listen: She's not a real person. These are separate questions. Civilian lives and environmental destruction aren't the same thing. That's all right, though, since I'd be happy to answer them both.
First, on the issue of environmental destruction, it's time to break out the Kleenex, Ms. Streisand, because there will be tons of it. Kilotons, even. I hate to break it to you, but you know that battle plan we're working on? Well, after we execute it successfully, we're going to crumble it up and throw it away… and we're not going to recycle!
What do you want to hear, anyway? That Saddam will, in fact, burn the oil fields? How the hell are we supposed to know what he's going to do? You won't believe us when we say he wants to use nuclear and/or biochemical weapons. Now you want us to guess what he'll do to the oil fields? Which is it, lady? Do you or don't you trust our opinion?
While we're at it, let's all just guess the number Saddam's thinking of. Here's my guess: Infinity. No, wait. Here's my real guess: Infinity plus one. Happy now? Infinity plus one.
And as for civilian causalities, again, are we counting the so-called human shields here or what? Because none of them are making it out of Baghdad alive, if you want my opinion. Not that you want my opinion. Or any opinion that defies the strange logic of your reality, for that matter.
Yes, people will die. Yes, war is tragic in that way. No, that doesn't make us the bad guys. Unlike the Palestinian militias personally financed by Saddam, the United States does not target women and children. You seem to have a hard time comprehending that, so let me repeat it for you: The United States does not target women and children, whereas Saddam's goons do.
We'll keep the death toll to a minimum, all right? I'm sorry if that's not good enough for you. If you don't like it, move to Baghdad -- I hear the Kurds know Memories frontward and back.
Oh, and about that whole environment thing: There's about two feet of snow-colored Global Warming piled up outside my door right now, so, if it's not too much trouble, grab a shovel.
5. How much of this war is about oil?
All of it's about oil, actually, but who cares what the French motives are? We're Americans here. We're concerned with one thing and one thing only, and that's preventing another September 11th -- failure to do so will nullify our oil needs, and all other needs, altogether.
I think the real question, Ms. Streisand, isn't how much this war is about oil, but rather: How much do you want this war to be about oil? And the answer to that question would seem to be a whole hell of a lot. In case you haven't already noticed, America can pretty much march right into Iraq and take whatever it wants anyway -- who's going to stop us? You? Sean Penn? I know you people think America is an empire, but an empire would've taken all that oil 12 years ago. We didn't.
The intellectual dishonesty of this oil conspiracy theory pretty much disqualifies you from your own anti-war argument. Thanks for asking, though.
6. How much of this war is a vendetta against "the man who tried to kill my dad"?
Did Saddam Hussein try to kill your dad, too, Ms. Streisand? And here I thought you and President Bush had nothing in common!
Mind you, this war has nothing to do with Saddam's attempt on Bush 41's life, but so what if it did? You don't mean to tell me that an assassination of a former president is permissible, do you? If, God forbid, someone went for Carter or Clinton's throat, I bet you'd be singing a different tune -- no doubt, one not found on any of your greatest hits collections.
George W. Bush is finishing his father's job. Big deal. If either of his two predecessors had half of his wherewithal, we wouldn't be in this mess right now.
7. Why now? For 11 years (without attacking the United States) Saddam Hussein has been defying U.N. resolutions, as many countries have. According to Scott Ritter, former U.N. Arms Inspector, no new evidence of imminent danger has presented itself.
I like how September 11, 2001, changed absolutely, positively nothing for you. If the events of that tragic day aren't enough to convince you there are people who want both of us dead, nothing is.
8. If we preemptively attack Iraq, will Iraq strike Israel who will then retaliate, leading to the Arab world responding, which will set off the powder keg in the entire middle east?
Preemptive? As the French say, that's a bunch of phooey. Well, I don't know how to say it in French, but I'm sure someone in France has said it before. It holds true, either way.
What, exactly, is preemptive about an attack on Iraq? Saddam Hussein made agreements 12 years ago and has refused to abide by them. To that end, the Gulf War never ended. The only preemptive action here is coming from the Left, which has been preemptively annoying ever since Bush took office -- or technically just before that.
How can you ask this question with a straight face, anyway? The Middle East isn't exactly doing all right for itself, and furthermore, Iraq has been attacking Israel regularly in the unconcealed guise of Palestinian suicide bombers. Why is it you can only connect the dots when it involves one of your fictional conspiracy theories, like the ones about oil and the president's dad? You're warped, you know that?
I'm glad I don't like your music, Ms. Streisand, because I'd have no choice but to stop listening to it by now. You're just the type of person who'd lace her songs with hidden messages (i.e., liberal propaganda -- none of that flimsy "Paul is dead" stuff), though, in fairness, I suppose that'd be George Bush's fault, too.
9. Is there really an alliance between Iraq and Al Qaeda, since one society is secular and one is fundamentalist? (I've read that Bin Laden has issued a Fatwa calling Hussein an apostate who needs to be destroyed.)
People change. Tony Blair wasn't too crazy about George W. Bush when the latter was elected, for example, but now Blair's put his own political career on the line to stand with Bush against a common enemy. It happens. Another for-instance: Your ilk has been quick to point out that America was once allied with Iraq, but look at our relationship now.
Recently, al-Jazeera played an audiotape in which bin Laden pledged solidarity with Iraq. I'm not sure why I've bothered with bringing this up. If you woke tomorrow morning and found Usama and Saddam curled up on your couch in the spoon position, that still wouldn't be enough proof for you.
10. What is the responsibility of a powerful nation to follow the rule of international law? ... As an example for the rest of the world.
The responsibility of a powerful nation is to uphold international law, Ms. Streisand. What better example is there? If we allow Iraq to continue its defiance of 17 UN resolutions, then, much like your initials, international law is a bunch of B.S.
Do the math.
11. What will be the potential blowback, or increased terrorist threat to the United States, as a result of going to war in Iraq?
Imagine what kind of place the world would be had we not tried appeasing Hitler. Just picture it. Looks pretty good, huh? So, how is it that one Hitler simply wasn't enough for you? How is it that you haven't learned from the world's past mistakes? Your ignorance is dooming the rest of us to repeat some vicious historical lessons, Ms. Streisand. The biggest threat to the United States is allowing folks like Usama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein to strengthen their resources. If you thought Nine-Eleven was something horrific, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Did you think Nine-Eleven was something horrific, by the way? You've got a funny way of showing it.
So, maybe my answers here have changed your mind, maybe they haven't -- maybe nothing will. I don't know and don't necessarily care. You don't have to appreciate the freedoms of our free enterprise, despite how well they've treated you. You don't have to fight alongside us and you don't have to agree with our fight. That's your right as an American. However, your rights stop where everyone else's rights begin. The Bush administration is trying to uphold the freedoms that have made you who you are, Ms. Streisand, and it is, indeed, anti-American for you and the rest of the Hollywood Left to stand in his way. If you can't understand this, then you're every bit as blind as you are irritating.
In other words, if you're that unhappy with America, then don't let the daisy cutters hit you on the way out.
Sincerely, Jonathan David Morris
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.