Confusion In Europe About The War

Hi Victorine,
Thank you so much for sending the article. Please forgive me for disagreeing with it and please remember I will always consider you and Madeleine dear dear friends no matter how badly decades of European socialism have obscured your view of American freedom and leadership. To answer your question: "aren't they Republicans as well?". The answer is, "no." Ron Reagan, Jr. Is a girly-boy type who had long standing and personal disagreements with his father that led him to always support the Democrats. Moreover, like Michael Moore, he is not even a college graduate and perhaps then is not well qualified to be talking about foreign policy. He was a would be ballerina who dropped out to capitalize on his fathers good fortune. Since his father left office he has not done too much. As for the Esquire article, it of course never would have been published, even in a grossly liberal publication like Esquire, were it not written by an ex-presidents son. Like the Moore film, it is an odd combination of lies and stupidity. For example, he starts out by devoting much time to his very important feeling that Bush was losing support. In fact the polls did not show this at all. The race has always been and remains, dead even. Even the European press has probably not been able to hide this from you? So why would he and Esquire print a lie: because he and they hoped dumb people would take his word for it and then want to be part of the joyous anti-Bush reawakening, and vote accordingly? The rest of the article is very very long and very very silly. It is too long to really respond to point by point but since it was mostly about the war I will give you the rationale for the war to help you understand the basics to contain our discussion within reasonably confined boundaries:

1) we were already at war with Iraq: they fired at our planes every day as we protected the Shiites in the south from further slaughter and the Kurds in the North from further slaughter. The Europeans silently loved this continuation of Gulf War 1 because it ensured their oil supply and freed them from the responsibility of attempting to stop the slaughter themselves, which undoubtedly they would not have had the courage or ability to do, any more than they had it in Bosnia. In the end, finishing a war is the usual and obvious course of history.

2) Saddam would not account for the WMD's he had used to slaughter the Kurds, he played cat and mouse with the UN inspectors about WMDs as if he had something to hide, all the West's intelligence services reported that he had WMD's; so it was highly reasonable to assume he had them, and for us to attack him. 3) This is especially true when he had been obviously aggressive across international borders as he was by invading Iran, Kuwait, attacking Israel with Scuds, paying the family of suicide bombers in Palestine, attempting to assassinate an American president, hosting Abu Nedal and other terrorists, and promising to activate terrorist cells planted in America.

3) This is also especially true when we know for sure that if he didn't actually have WMD's he was nevertheless an ultra deadly mortal enemy who could redevelop WMD's or pass on the ability to redevelop them to other mortal enemies. In an age where a jet plane can be a WMD or one beer can full of weaponized anthrax can make the entire East Coast of the US unlivable for 100 years we can assume attack was necessary.

4) Saddam was a deadly and real enemy 100 times more obvious and deadly than Osama Bin Laden which explains why we were at war with Hussein and not Bin Laden.

5) Accordingly after 9/11 a preemptive strike against Hussein was 100 times more rational than a preemptive strike would have against Bin laden on 9/10 or the Japanese on 12/6/41. 6) Saddam was a mass murderer within his own country. While the Europeans feel no moral obligation or compulsion to react purposively to this, America does, as the last best hope for freedom on earth. It is sad but understandable that the old world can merely look on jealously and resentfully as the new world takes care of business. I suppose we figure the old world has been rendered unable to fight and morally neutered by century after century of internecine slaughter to no end whatsoever accept perhaps to destroy any ability to care about right and wrong.

6) War in general is necessary from time to time to demonstrate a willingness to die for what you have and/or believe in. Without this demonstration others who are willing to die will take everything you have. The Democrats showed in the 90's, through successive terrorist attacks, that we in America preferred the easy life of Coca Cola, Oreo cookies, and Plasma TV's to fighting and dying in defense of freedom. Were it not for the Republican willingness to finally fight and die the terrorists would have eventually been sitting in our living rooms watching our Plasma TV's while John Lennon, the Europeans, and the Democrats would have been responding "give peace a chance"

7) War with Iraq served notice on all the world's terrorists that through their very presence they can bring about the destruction of their host country and the presence of America troops on their sacred soil. Further, it serves notice on the world's gov'ts that by hosting terrorists they can bring about the destruction of their gov't and the presence of American troops on their sacred soil.

8) As Amercia has introduced and maintained freedom and capitalism around the world, technolgy has developed and proliferated. The war in Iraq serves notice on the world that U.S. is prepared to accept its responsibility to stop virulent forms of technology from spreading to uncivilized countries, groups, or individuals.

9) John Kerry at this point should be more despised than Bill Clinton ever was for his disingenuousness. Kerry took the podium at his nominating convention by saying, "reporting for duty" as if he eagerly wanted to lead the nation in battle and was well suited to do so. In truth he is a long haired hippy, war protester, flower child, peace freak who spent 4 months in Vietnam (where he exagerated his heroism, at best), and then spent 35 years protesting his experience, the military, and voting against every weapons system and defense/intelligence budget that he ever saw. If he was running for commander-in flower child aafter the second coming of Christ you'd say fine, but commander-in-chief during a world war, you'd say this is the greatest act of hypocrisy in American history. Kerry said, "reporting for duty" and the nation is now saying, "we don't beleive you".

Well, Victorine, I hope that is helpful to you? Please always feel to ask any questions you'd like. Bye Ted :-) (bje1000@aol.com)