This letter was posted on another eclectic site I belong to. This is what I wrote in response. At the end of this response, below my name, I have posted the letter in its entirety, minus the name of the recipient.
Let me have a go at answering Mr. Duncan's bull roar. I watch about 6 hours of C-Span a day as well as read from numerous political sites. Since my brother, whom lives in the L.A. area, is a flaming ultra right wing conservative, I am well practiced at answering many of the charges put up by the Republican Party, which was hijacked by the Fascist crew that is now running it.
Duncan wrote:
"The Democrats cannot stop trying to micromanage the War in Iraq,
despite the fact that they still have no plan for victory. First,
they put forward their 'slow-bleed' withdrawal strategy, which would
have gradually reduced resources for our men and women in uniform
while they were still in harm's way. The resulting uproar from around
the country forced them to backtrack."
Actually, I don't see anybody with a plan for victory. Hey, wait a minute. Weren't we already victorious once? Didn't we attack Iraq to eliminate the threat of Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction? Didn't we achieve that? So mission accomplished. Hurray, we won. Let's go home. Oh, you say that there are other missions that we forgot to tell you about, like securing Iraq's oil supply and installing military bases that are strategically located so we can attack other Mid-East countries. Well, now, let me think about that. Oh, the only uproar I heard was the sound of the masses yelling, "Enough is enough!!"
Duncan wrote:
"This week, Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha waited until the President
was out of the country before announcing their next attempt to take
over the duties of the commander in chief: they want to set a date
certain at which we will leave Iraq, whether that nation is stable or
not."
Robert, Robert, Robert. Washington doesn?t work that way and you know it. You write that paragraph as if Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Murtha are children that when their parents leave they do naughty things. For goodness sake. The president is not part of the legislative process. You see, since you seem a little confused on the issue let me explain. The Representatives, as an individual or in collaboration with others, write a bill and it is brought up in front of the body of the House of Representatives. Amendments are offered and debated and then the final bill is debated and it gets voted on. Next the Senate does the same thing and they too vote on their version and finally, if both bills are passed in their respective bodies, they are sent to a committee of the House and the Senate and a final wording is issued which both the House and the Senate again finally vote on and finally it is sent to the president for him to sign or veto. I think he?ll be back from his trip before all of that happens.
As I have heard the bill debated on the House floor, it sets benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet by certain dates. It then says that they expect that troops should be able to be redeployed by said dates. If the president thinks that these dates can?t be met for some reason and he is willing to try to sell another plan, he simply has to ask for forbearance from the House. It?s how our government is designed to work. This is interesting, because when Germany surrendered, President Franklin D. Roosevelt didn?t simply install a zillion soldiers in Berlin as an occupying army. He came to the House of Representatives with a plan and requested funds and support. It was called the Marshall Plan. Remember that? I wonder why it is so difficult for Bush and his cronies to do the same?
Duncan wrote:
? We all want our troops to come home, not just from Iraq, but from
every front in the War on Terror. But Republicans understand that how
the war ends matters. Does it end with the United States being chased
from the Middle East and leaving Iraq in the hands of terrorists? Or
does it end with a free Iraq working as an ally against Islamic
fascists? The terrorists are not na?ve, and they are not stupid. If
we tell them that we will leave Iraq on a certain date no matter
what, then they know that all they have to do is last that long. And
they will.?
Well, that is what we call rhetoric?empty words. YaDaYaDaYaDa. What does it mean? Who said the war will ever end. We are not fighting al Qaeda. We are fighting ?insurrectionists?. These are G. Bush?s own words. That?s what he called them. An insurrectionist is ?A person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions).? That would seem to mean that we are in the midst of a civil war. These people are attacking each other and we are caught in the crossfire. If they want an Islamic government, such as Iran has, then who are we to get in their way. If they want a democracy, such as we have tried to install there, then they gosh darn better get to fighting for their freedom. That is what we did. Many times. It can be the price for freedom. Do you think if we don?t tell them when we are leaving, they are going to throw their hands up in disgust and say, ?Oh, heck, I guess you got the best of us.? And you tell me ?Republicans understand?? Why don?t you understand that last November the people voted and said you don?t understand squat.
Duncan wrote:
Even some Democrats are concerned with the Pelosi-Murtha attempts to
force a withdrawal from Iraq. According to the Washington Post,
Democrat Representative Stephanie Herseth responded to the latest
Pelosi-Murtha plan by saying "There's a fine line that I hope will
not be blurred between micromanaging the war and assuring
accountability." Democrat Representative Dan Boren said, "It's still
micromanaging the war."
In response to these quotes, I applaud Representative Stephanie Herseth and Representative Dan Boren for being true to their beliefs. I would hope that many people from both parties are looking, at this moment, at their hearts and their personal values. I would hope that in the end, most would understand the role of the House of Representatives as an overseer of the Executive and Judicial branches and accept it as their duty. It is part of their role written in the Constitution of the United States.
Duncan wrote:
"Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha can put different faces on their plans.
They can try to spin us every time they unveil a new version. But in
the end, their only goal is to force the President to withdraw before
Iraq is stable. The result would be disastrous. If we leave too soon,
we will be leaving Iraq in the hands of vicious terrorists. Not only
will they terrorize the Iraqi people, but they will turn Iraq into a
base of operations. It will be like Afghanistan was before we
defeated the Taliban, with one major difference: Iraq has oil, which
would mean unlimited resources for our enemies."
Why would we withdraw any faster than we did say in Germany or Korea? We are still there, for goodness sakes. Again, I have not read that goal in the bill that is coming before the House. It sets benchmarks. What it does do is let the Iraqi government and people that they had better take the bull by the horn. Quit harboring bad guys if they want a democracy. Do you guys know that you can?t make a democracy work if the people don?t want it? The Iraqi government has to let all people in the country be represented and not just their favored majority. Remember how horrible it was in America when the Republican Party dominated everything. Remember the corruption measured by the number of politicians arrested or shamed because of nefarious acts? Remember how the Executive branch became a King George branch because the legislative branch refused to execute any of the constitutional rights of oversight? How many bills were vetoed by King George during that period? Any? Hey, I?m not picking on the Republican Party. The same thing happened in the 60?s with the Democrats. When we had runaway inflation, welfare families, two and three generations of them, extraordinary unemployment. It also was horrible. We need the three branches working as checks and balances. And remember, we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq. We are fighting insurrectionists?rebels?freedom fighters?get it?
Duncan wrote:
"We cannot allow that to happen. We cannot allow al Qaeda to
reconstitute in Iraq. We must keep them on the run. And that means we
must defeat the latest Pelosi-Murtha attempt to force an early
withdrawal from Iraq."
What constitutes an early withdrawal? I don?t think I have heard the word withdrawal used. It seems to me the word is redeployment. Some of the soldiers would be redeployed to Afghanistan, where the al Qaeda is located. Listen, it is a tough time over there. The Palestinians have been fighting for freedom for 50 plus years. The Israelites have not been able to resolve that problem with their neighbor. Lebanon has been filled with war and strife ever since the Ottoman Empire collapsed. Why do you think we can be any more successful in Iraq? We did what we intended. We eliminated the threat that G. Bush and his fellow fascists claimed that Saddam held over us and the rest of the freethinking world. Were done. We were the bad guys. We could have used the United Nations and patience. Bush/Cheney chose to be warriors. Lets get us out but with dignity; the dignity that the troop redeployment allows for.
Duncan wrote:
"Please write a letter to your editor today condemning the Democrats'
latest attempt to force a retreat in the War on Terror.
And then call in to talk radio to help spread the word that we cannot
allow Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha to try to micromanage the war
while President Bush is overseas."
What a closing. You amaze me. This seems a good time to attack this word ?micromanage? that keeps getting thrown around. I?m a businessman. I am not a soldier, but this word came from business not the military. If I was to apply it to the military I would say that the only people that micromanage a war are the Sergeants and Lieutenants and maybe a couple of Captains. Generals, Colonels, and Majors generally macro manage. They look at the big picture. The lieutenants and sergeants are the ones that yell ?Duck? and that would be micromanaging. The word being applied to the House of Representative when it is only trying to use the constitutionally defined rights of oversight is juvenile or at least ignorant. The Representatives that are supporting this bill are responding to the 62% of the American public that have said they felt George W. Bush?s policies concerning Iraq were heading in the wrong direction and they would like to see a change. The Representatives that are supporting this bill are responding to the 52% of the American public that have said they would support an unconditional pullout. This group of brave Representatives, both democrat and republican are responding to the people they represent. You see, Mr. Duncan, they have come to the conclusion if they don?t listen to the electorate, maybe, just maybe, come 2008, they ain?t going to be in Washington D.C. no more. It is the American people that are saying ?ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!?
Go ahead, call your right wing radio stations and the few people left listening to them will probably cheer you.
Mick Zellar
From the Republican committee.
The Democrats cannot stop trying to micromanage the War in Iraq,
despite the fact that they still have no plan for victory. First,
they put forward their 'slow-bleed' withdrawal strategy, which would
have gradually reduced resources for our men and women in uniform
while they were still in harm's way. The resulting uproar from around
the country forced them to backtrack.
This week, Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha waited until the President
was out of the country before announcing their next attempt to take
over the duties of the commander in chief: they want to set a date
certain at which we will leave Iraq, whether that nation is stable or
not.
We all want our troops to come home, not just from Iraq, but from
every front in the War on Terror. But Republicans understand that how
the war ends matters. Does it end with the United States being chased
from the Middle East and leaving Iraq in the hands of terrorists? Or
does it end with a free Iraq working as an ally against Islamic
fascists? The terrorists are not na?ve, and they are not stupid. If
we tell them that we will leave Iraq on a certain date no matter
what, then they know that all they have to do is last that long. And
they will.
Even some Democrats are concerned with the Pelosi-Murtha attempts to
force a withdrawal from Iraq. According to the Washington Post,
Democrat Representative Stephanie Herseth responded to the latest
Pelosi-Murtha plan by saying "There's a fine line that I hope will
not be blurred between micromanaging the war and assuring
accountability." Democrat Representative Dan Boren said, "It's still
micromanaging the war."
Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha can put different faces on their plans.
They can try to spin us every time they unveil a new version. But in
the end, their only goal is to force the President to withdraw before
Iraq is stable. The result would be disastrous. If we leave too soon,
we will be leaving Iraq in the hands of vicious terrorists. Not only
will they terrorize the Iraqi people, but they will turn Iraq into a
base of operations. It will be like Afghanistan was before we
defeated the Taliban, with one major difference: Iraq has oil, which
would mean unlimited resources for our enemies.
We cannot allow that to happen. We cannot allow al Qaeda to
reconstitute in Iraq. We must keep them on the run. And that means we
must defeat the latest Pelosi-Murtha attempt to force an early
withdrawal from Iraq.
Please write a letter to your editor today condemning the Democrats'
latest attempt to force a retreat in the War on Terror.
And then call in to talk radio to help spread the word that we cannot
allow Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha to try to micromanage the war
while President Bush is overseas.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert M. (Mike) Duncan
Chairman, Republican National Committee
