[CS-FSLUG] PD: Robertson and Falwell final denounced by religious leaders

[Brian Derr]

On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 11:33:31PM -0400, Don Parris wrote:
> What I hate about elections is that the local Christian radio stations
> overwhelmingly support a man who has failed misrably as a diplomat. 
> Frankly, I care very little for either Bush or Kerry.  I'm not certain
> which one scares me most.  On the hand, I can choose a man who went to
> war on faulty "evidence" - thus escalating the animosity of other
> nations toward us - and skewering whatever respect many other nations
> did have for us.

Watched "Fahrenheit 9/11"?  This argument of "faulty 'evidence'" is
getting rigor mortis.  Let the horse die in peace?  Despite the fact
that the US media has yet to let go of the WMD issue and declaration by
Pres. Bush that the major conflict of the war was over going to Iraq was
a logic step in the "War on Terror".

Sure, we as American citizens, haven't heard from Ted Turner that there
was a viable reason to go to war with Iraq, but does that make it truth.
Lets all click the power button on our brains and think through some
things for a moment, shall we?

America was attacked by Islamic terrorist on September 11, 2001.  A few
days later we move into Afghanistan to decimate the Taliban and Al
Qaeda.  Mission accomplished, Taliban is gone and Al Qaeda is on the
run.  Where else might we turn to stop terrorism from hitting the
streets of America en masse?

Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, N. Korea just to name a few.  Why not start
with Saddam and Iraq?  He has posed a threat to the world for decades.
(Set aside the "what about the WMDs?!" notion, it is stupid.)  Does it
really matter if Saddam had WMDs?  DOES IT?  For moderates and liberals
who tout themselves as protectors of women's rights and human rights in
general I would think liberating millions of people would be a
triumphant day.  No?  Why not?  Ask yourself that question.

Saddam Hussein who has committed genocide on his own people and the
Turks up north or a chance at freedom and liberty for millions?  This is
no longer an issue of WMDs but of freedom from terror and freedom in
general.

The debate about Bush's faulty evidence isn't a debate but one way Bush
bashing.  Think about this fact:  Everyone _knew_ Saddam _had_ WMDs and
was a threat to the world.  John Kerry said it.  Tony Blair said it.
Our beloved 42nd President William Jefferson Clinton said it.  But why
did they change their tune?  Because of political expediency, that's
why!  It makes sense from a political point of view to say that what
Bush did was wrong because it cause American troops to be killed in
Iraq.  No one in America likes that.

So, to play on the sorrow in people's lives the Democrats have changed
their tune to Bush bashing in order to grab those that are saddened by
the loss of American soldiers.  The average soldier knows what they are
doing is good, they also know the risks and accept them, why haven't
you?  (Yes, this statement is made with knowledge.  I have spoken to
many soldiers past and present and they all feel the same way.  The
words of one the 6 o'clock news doesn't show the feelings of the Army as
a whole.)

I need to stop here before I write the novel that I feel needs to be
written about the issue.  All I can say to those that hate Bush is this:
why do you hate him?  Is it because of what you've seen on the news?  If
this is the case you may want to think about the source of your
education.

Brian


For those of us living in a state lucky enough to have the Constitution
Party on the ballot perhaps you should have a look at their candidate,
Mr. Peroutka.  http://www.constitutionparty.com and
http://www.peroutka2004.com

-- 
The just man walketh in his integrity:
his children are blessed after him.  -- Proverbs 20:7
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ofb.biz/pipermail/christiansource_ofb.biz/attachments/20040906/9fbef298/attachment.sig>