« Where Is The USO's $10,000 Check? | Main | Count Every Ballot!!! »

3 Answers From a Bush Supporter

Harry Boswell asks A question for the Bush supporters who may read this.

He really asked 3 questions but I didn't charge him any more for my answers.

***

Q -Is there anything that bothers you about the way Bush has handled the Iraq war?

Nope- Not a gosh darn thing. In fact, I don't even have a problem with the rebuilding effort.

Now before you call me insane, hear me out.

The war was textbook. In fact new textbook because the prosecution of the Iraq war was so incredible it will make them write new textbooks for the war collages.

As for the rebuilding effort, Saddam had let his country's infrastructure rot far more than we expected. The whole "Baghdad still does not have electricity" meme was a farce. Baghdad didn't have electricity before we got there either. In the end, Saddam's raping of his country's wealth did cost us more money than we anticipated but all in all, the war itself was cheaper than we guessed so things balance out.

Some argue we were caught by surprised at the "insurgents." Democrats love to say, "They promised us there would be people with flowers in the streets" conveniently ignoring the fact there were people with flowers in the street. (literally, ironically enough)

Let me be more precise than the big media. The "insurgents" are not people who want Saddam back. The few loyalists Saddam had were gone long ago. What we have in Iraq today is radical Islamists who want to kill infidels. The "Iraq war" ended long ago. We won. The global war on terror however, continues.

Let's be clear... What we have now in Iraq is people who are taking advantage of geography. They would kill you or me in the street tomorrow or hundreds of us with 747's if we let them. They are not attacking because we ousted Saddam. They are attacking because they want you, me and the poor Marine over there dead. The Marine just happens to be in range.

The Islamists in Iraq have the added incentive that they want to spread Islamic rule over part of the country. But they thought that 9/11 would further that aim here. Probability of success rarely enters into the Islamic mind.

If we underestimated anything it was not the scope of the work. It was the over-powering, unrelenting, tenacious, fanatical zeal of Islamic extremists. (Kevin pays me by the adjective) In effect, we underestimated our enemy again. Just as we did after the first attack on the Trade Towers, the U.S.S. Cole, et al. It's a simple mistake. The western mind does not understand their ingrained level of barbarism and brutality.

Should Bush have understood that placing that many U.S. soldiers in the middle of the same people who want us dead anyway would be a problem? Perhaps. But I don't recall anyone else saying that would be an issue either.

(the bigger question) Should Bush be FAULTED for not foreseeing this? Let's put it this way. Bush has a better understanding that the radical Islamists want us dead than anyone on the public stage with the possible exception of the "born again" Vladimir Putin. Bush is the one guy who understands and is willing to tell the world this is evil and these people do evil things. If even he underestimated them, rather than you and I second guessing his judgment, perhaps we should pay more attention to the size of the challenge we face.

Q -Has your attitude towards the Bush strategy changed at all since late 2002?

Nope, he wants to change the terrorists' hearts and kill the ones who don't want to be changed. I still support both causes in either order- just as long as one of them happens before they kill one of us.

Q -If it has, and you were running for a national office, how would you explain your changed position?

I might be a lot of things but John Kerry ain't one of them.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 3 Answers From a Bush Supporter:

» The Waterglass linked with Got It in Three

» The Kudzu Files linked with Questions for Bush Supporters, round 2

Comments (9)

Step 1: Invade Iraq.<... (Below threshold)

Step 1: Invade Iraq.

Step 2: ?????

Step 3: Terrorists cowed into submission.

"Hey guys, what's step 2?"

Step 2: Kill terrorists.<br... (Below threshold)
brian:

Step 2: Kill terrorists.

Aw, nuts -- Brian beat me t... (Below threshold)

Aw, nuts -- Brian beat me to it. :-D

Yeah, Step 2 is definitely ... (Below threshold)

Yeah, Step 2 is definitely kill terrorists; something the Liberal-Left Democrats can't understand.

From my observations out he... (Below threshold)

From my observations out here in distant space, I can see that killing terrorists is something the Liberal-Left Democrats are unwilling to actually do.

You guys are on the wrong t... (Below threshold)
Justin from the Liberal-Left:

You guys are on the wrong track. To paraphrase a Doritos catch-phrase and apply it to terrorists, "kill all you want, they'll make more." Killing terrorists doesn't cow other terrorists into submission, it just makes the remaining terrorists more marginalized and radical. Look at what has happened in Chechenya and Israel. They killed terrorists there, and all they got were newly minted terrorists, even more desperate than the ones who were killed.

Wait! I hear you saying, "why not just kill all terrorists?" Well you can't. Terrorists are not a race, or a nationality. You can't kill all terrorists unless you know someway to guarantee that, after you have miraculously identified and killed all current terrorists, no one else will decide to become a terrorist. How do you do that? How do you make sure that no one will become so angry, thoughtless, and pathetically hopeless, that he or she will resort to terrorism? One thing is certain. You don't do it by attacking a country like Iraq, which was not a sponsor of terrorism and that posed no threat to the United States.

I went to public school, so I hope you'll forgive my ignorance. Nevertheless, I learned very early on that one of the reasons the United States was better than every other country was that we never waged war other than in self-defense. What happened to that? How could we so easily have fallen into the role of an aggressor nation?

Now, don't tell me that Iraq posed a threat to us because of "weapons of mass destruction program related activities." If you believe that, then I suppose you believe in alien abductions, horoscopes, and all that tripe. Iraq posed no threat. It was just a very attractive target. There are plenty of countries out there that undeniably sponsor terrorism; countries like: Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. But, we didn't invade them because they weren't attractive targets.

As I said earlier, we can't eradicate terrorism, not unless we lobotomize the entire human species. Still, we can work to minimize it. We can do that with four things: bullets, security, education, and humanitarian aid. Once we identify terrorists we can kill them. Unfortunately, it's hard to identify terrorists, so we need to strengthen our security; no more easily identifiable air marshals would be a good start. Additionally, we need massive public relations and educational campaigns to reach into every dark corner in the world teach everyone the value of life and mutual respect. Finally, we need to increase the amount, the breadth, and the effectiveness of our humanitarian aid, so that people everywhere can have hope.

Killing terrorists doesn... (Below threshold)

Killing terrorists doesn't cow other terrorists into submission, it just makes the remaining terrorists more marginalized and radical.

Which makes them less likely to enjoy widespread popular support, which makes them less able to recruit and fundraise, which makes them less dangerous.

Meanwhile the ones you kill are permanently deterred from committing any more acts of terrorism.

Justin, if you found a nest of scorpions just a few feet from your kid's sandbox, would you refrain from killing them because you could never eradicate the species?

No McGehee, I would kill th... (Below threshold)
Justin from the Liberal-Left:

No McGehee, I would kill those scorpions. George W. Bush, on the other hand, would destroy a nest of garter snakes living in the next county. The question I have for you, McGehee, and everyone else, is can you tell the difference?

As for your earlier arguments, I submit they are not borne out by history. It doesn't take widespread popular support for a Chechen black widow to strap bombs to herself and kill a lot of people. Nevertheless, if you had read my earlier post a little more carefully, you would have seen that I voiced support for killing identified terrorists.

I am too old to be a blogge... (Below threshold)
John St. John:

I am too old to be a blogger. There is too much about this modern world that I do not understand.
I can not conceive of a young person bragging about being a conservative. In 1776 insurgents were called patriots. Now they are called terrorists. I remember the Kamikazi terrorists that just about sank our Pacific fleet. People who are willing to committ suicide are people who do not have any other alternative when they are faced with air=craft carriers and tanks. I sat in front of my TV and watched "Shock and Awe". I could not believe that Americans would bomb a city like the Nazis bombed Warsaw and Guernica.

I can not believe that the majority of Jewish people could countenance the kind of nationalism that caused them so much pain in the holocaust.

I can not understand why the American people do not understand that war is between nations, and that they can be fooled by the hype of a "war against drugs", or a "war against terrorism". We spend 400 billion a year on the Pentagon and there isn't a war in sight.

eicho de chingada madre!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy