How would you answer this letter?

[thecrow]

I got this email this morning from my freeper brother:
> > How many people can YOU send this to? Keep this going clear up through the 2004 election!! We need to be heard
> >
> > Worst President in history?
> > (The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the
> > editor.
> > Please forward to all on your list as this will put things in
> perspective:)
> > Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war.
> > They complain about his prosecution of it..
> > One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.
> >
> > Let's clear up one point: President Bush didn't start the war on terror.
> > Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.
> > Let's look at the worst president and mismanagement claims.
> >
> > FDR led us into World War II.
> > Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
> > >From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost,
> > an average of 112,500 per year.
> > Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
> > North Korea never attacked us.
> > >From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost,
> > an average of 18,333 per year.
> > John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
> > Vietnam never attacked us.
> > Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
> > >From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost,
> > an average of 5,800 per year.
> > Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never
> > attacked us.
> > He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan
> and
> > did nothing.
> > Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
> > Over 2,900 lives lost on 9/11.
> >
> > In the two years since terrorists attacked us,
> > President Bush has liberated two countries,
> > rushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida,
> > put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a
> shot, captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people..
> > We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year.
> > Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at
> > home.
> >
> > Worst president in history? Come on!
> >
> > The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...
> > It took less time to take Iraq
> > than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.
> > That was a 51 day operation.
> >
> > We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time
> > than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
> >
> > It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy
> > the Medina Republican Guard
> > than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at
> > Chappaquiddick.
> >
> > It took less time to take Iraq
> > than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!
> >
> > Our military is GREAT! PASS IT ON.
> >

I find it interesting that at the end he says "our military is great" instead of "Our pResident is great" but all the same I need some input here.
Thanks for any you guys can provide!

[4morewars]

1. We took Iraq?????

thank god that's over !!!!!!
/sarcasm

[wtf]

2. Wow

That sure is a lot of prasing of Clinton's military for a freeper. :)

[dryan]

6. Not worth the energy

Anyone that knows anything about current events or history knows that this is just a bunch of bull****. But its not worth the time or energy to write a letter to refute it. No matter how much you try, people that believe this garbage are not going to change their mind.

[NewJeffCT]

19. You have to respond

These emails get circulated so much that they take on a grain of truth to most people. How many people still think Clinton turned down Osama's head on a platter from the Sudan?

[lectrobyte]

3. When I get crap like this from my relatives, I usually point out

Bush has accomplished two of Osama's goals: US out of Saudi Arabia, and Saddam removed from power.

Halliburton no-bid contracts

Osama still not captured

gas prices and oil company profits

economic news

[thecrow]

7. Thank you! n/t

[FDRrocks]

4. Germany declared war on us...

Tripartite Agreenement. It glances over Nixons role in escalating Vietnam and low-intensity warfare in Laos and Cambodia. It takes the 'liberation' of Iraq and Afghanistan at face value. I do not buy that we are liberating anything.

[thecrow]

8. Thank you! n/t

[Blue_Roses]

15. Exactly ...Hitler declared war on us

and he was taking over all of Europe. Quite a bit of difference here between him and Saddam who was contained and being watched. I hate it when they try to compare WWII with Iraq and Bush with Roosevelt. BUSH WAS NO ROOSEVELT OR CHURCHILL FOR THAT MATTER. Tell your brother he needs to do a little reading of how great the WWII leaders were and how they actually KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING!

I have a rwing sister and brother-in-law, so I know how this story goes with them. I can't even talk about it without getting livid. They are so closed-minded.

[thecrow]

5. Seriously... Help me answer this! n/t

[Derrow]

9. there are links at www.snopes.com

Look up politics, click on George Bush, then click on resume. Snopes offers two viewpoints, one pro-bush and the other moderate (at least I think it's moderate). Good luck!

[newyawker99]

21. Hi Derrow!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Derrow]

25. he he thanks! :-D

hey there newyawker99

[sdfernando]

10. letter respone

I remember visiting a web page once that refutted most these claims pretty well. I can't remember the page or link though. Can anyone else provide??

[emanymton]

11. Declare Victory And Bring The Soldiers Home

The shrub sent 350,000 people to murder a man and his family in Iraq because he had NUCLEAR weapons: chemicals were not the reason for USA attacking the third world country of Iraq. Being a bully against someone who cannot defend himself really is grounds for "strutting your stuff."

What did Iraq under Saddam Hussein do, that USA has not done since the shrub and his junta stole their way into the White House?




Bush Lied, People Died

[troublemaker]

12. What's to answer?

Is there any person alive who is a) likely to find this letter persuasive, and b) is responsive to reasoned argument?

Don't argue with these people; ignore them. Current events can give us one election but only a policy of complete ostracization can eliminate the Republican menace. When people realize they are too far outside the herd for the average person to pay any attention to them they will mostly scramble back to the herd. We need a combination of Lysistrata and Atlas Shrugged... total non-cooperation.

Given the gender gap it's a certainty that millions of women are sleeping with (and bearing the children of) men who are essentially Klan supporters. Fuck that! If we associate with Republicans we have only ourselves to blame for the fact that they think it's acceptable to be a de facto Klansman. They're right, you know... it must not be that bad if people keep associating with you in spite of it. Right?

[thecrow]

16. I was...

kinda BORN into this relationship.
I had no choice!

[troublemaker]

23. Don't mind me

My entire family thinks the world is 6,000 years old so I know the feeling. But even though I love them I don't argue with them. It can only lead to bad feelings.

[gratuitous]

13. Your brother's a little behind the times

First off, we've lost over 800 now in Iraq in the course of 15 months (not two years), and more than 100 in Afghanistan. Annualized, those deaths in Iraq work out to about 640 a year, not 300.

Second, Iraq is nowhere near "liberated" and Afghanistan is in the same situation. While Afghanistan didn't have much to lose, civilization-wise, Iraq was a repressive but fully functioning society. Now people in Iraq are dying from dysentery, cholera, and other easily preventable diseases due to lack of clean water and electricity. Also, ask the Marines how successful they've been in "taking" Fallujah. You don't request a cease fire from armed hostilities if you're winning.

While terrorists haven't struck "at home" since September 11, they haven't been idle, either. Ask the people of Spain how happy they are that they got suckered into joining Lil George's Excellent Imperialistic Adventure. Also, get an answer from your brother now: If there is another terror attack on American soil on Bush's watch, will that count as a failure for him and his policy? If no attacks means success, then another attack means failure, right?

If I have more than 30 seconds some time later today, I'll post more, but that should get you started.

[CBHagman]

14. The claims about Afghanistan are pretty shaky.

Unfortunately, it will take some reading and effort, which I doubt many of these e-mail spammers will take time for.

At any rate, the facts that there's ongoing violence in Afghanistan, most of the country is basically unstable, the lot of women is by no means as sunny as Bush claims, the Taliban and al Qaeda are by no means consigned to history, and our allies are warlords who will engage in inter-ethnic rivalries and violence pretty much put the lie to that silly e-mail claim about Afghanistan being "liberated." It's a half-assed effort, and Bush knows it.

[Sparkly]

17. A few points

Subject: A few points
Message:
"Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war... Let's clear up one point: President Bush didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11."

Typically, this runs from "this war" meaning Iraq (the war Liberals believe he shouldn't have started)to "the war on terror" without any distinction. Yes, terrorists were active before 9/11, and when President Clinton tried to go after them, he was accused of "wagging the dog." When Bush took office, he did nothing on terrorism, but instead reverted to Reagan-era Star Wars plans and ranted about "ICBMs from rogue nations."

" was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing."

That's a tip-off that this person is a rightwing liar. It's been shown false long ago. (Notice they even use the exact same words -- it's always the "head on a platter." They're parrots!)

"In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries"
We're done now? Really?

"rushed the Taliban"
Sounds like they brought them into a fraternity or something.

"crippled al-Qaida"
They've been gaining strength and just carried out attacks in Saudi Arabia and supposedly in Madrid. They're operating openly in Pakistan and Afghanistan, skirting the border, and have moved into Iraq, as well. They're far from crippled.

"put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a
> shot"
Lybia volunteered, I do not believe Bush put inspectors anywhere, and I believe we're right now removing oversight from North Korea because we're stretched so thin.

"captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.."
Saddam was a dictator. We'd already dealt with that slaughter decades ago. If more needed to be done, there were many other options besides invading on false pretexts.

"We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year."

Wow, this is an OLD piece of propaganda!!!

I'm sure "our military is great" is added, as usual, so that agreement with that means agreement with everything else; disagreement with everything else means disagreement with that... "The military" is used as a Republican entity, and that's just exploitation.

Gotta run and listen to this Tenet news now!!

[Maeve]

18. Clinton was NOT offered Osama's head

And when he went after bin Laden, he was accused of "wagging the dog" by Arlen Specter (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm)

Al Queda is NOT crippled, but is thriving in a new and different form (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-03-ridge-interview_x.htm)

Janet Reno took office 17 days before the Waco mess--she walked into a situation that had already been fouled up for more than a month.

The administration said "we know where" the WMD were--but they weren't, they aren't and the guy we trusted (Chalabi) turns out to have been less than "on our side".

And we're still losing folks in BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq. Mission accomplished? Nope.

[NewJeffCT]

20. Somebody had a great response to this before on here, but

After the US declared war on Japan, Japan's ally Germany declared war on us, and we declared war back on Germany.

Korea was a 'police action' sanctioned by the UN. And, we had troops in South Korea. Were we supposed to abandon them to their fate?

I believe negotations about inspectors & WMD with Libya were originally initiated under Clinton.

I believe the Europeans negotiated letting inspectors into Iran and not us.

And, after 9/11, we had the anthrax attacks & the DC sniper, as well as the recent ricin letter to the Senate.

I believe Bosnia was a NATO sanctioned action, but I am not 100% sure. We did not lose any soldiers in Bosnia under Clinton.

Vietnam was started by Eisenhower.

[stavka]

22. This is what I have done.....

I have made it clear either we don't talk politics or we don't talk.

I could explain why what you wrote is offensive, and in my mind just plain wrong, but not if it is going to lead to an argument. In the future please don't send me similar e-mails, they are not welcome.

[thecrow]

24. Thank you all!!

I received so many letters on this; more than I expected!:yourock:
You've all made some great points and links and messages that I can now reply with. Especially the one that said "don't send me any more messages like this; they are not welcome" and "I don't want to aruge with you.."
The thing is, I get a regular stream of this stuff.
His last message pissed me off so much that I replied to his whole mailing list with a bunch of New Testament quotes that apparently shut him down, as he didn't answer that one at all!
He can't answer because he is a fundie and I hit the nail on the head.:evilgrin:

[dryan]

26. No need for thanks

We all have (or had) relatives like yours. My husband's nephew swears that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and let it happen so he would have an excuse to declare war on Japan.