Wanna write my response to an e-mail I got on my protest photos?

[prolesunited]

This person doesn't seem malicious, so I thought perhaps we could reach him or her with some facts and credible links. BTW, the spelling errors were in the original.

Iraq was going to be a problem later on. Bush is taking care of it now in their homes instead of haveing the war in your home and my home. I don't mean to ofend but the terrorist hit us first.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. 911 had no iraqi's

nor was it iraq sponsored rather it was saudi sponsored. most of the terrorist were saudis or egyptians. iraq was never a real threat to us.

[slinkerwink]

2. you have to bring up the point that by going to war in Iraq

over an unfunded mandate based on so-called weapons of mass destruction, and the belligerent actions of our military has only served to antagonize the Iraqis there which makes them much more sympathetic to terrorist organizations. Insist that the best way to win their "hearts and minds" is by actually establishing an actual government of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites or by partitioning Iraq into three quarters.

[derby378]

3. Just ask him, "So who was the terrorist responsible for 9/11?"

Make him explain his own position clearly.

[arcane1]

4. lol, this idiot thinks the Iraqi army was headed to our borders?

Osama called Saddam by the same name he called us: "infidel"


Please ask this person to elaborate on how Iraq was going to be a problem, specifically how s/he would end up fighting Iraqis in his/her home.

Bush HIMSELF said there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11. Is this person saying that Bush lied???

[DinahMoeHum]

5. Tell him to show you the evidence that Iraq committed 9/11. . .

undisputed evidence, that is. No regurgitated Fox News crap, either.


:kick:

[GOPisEvil]

6. There were no terrorists from Iraq.

Iraq had nothing, zip, zero, nada, zilch to do with 9/11.

Plus, invading countries simply because we disagree with their leaders is a dangerous precedent. What if the Chinese decided they didn't care much for George Bush one day and sent their army?

[Robbien]

7. Mine

Thank you for your email. I agree that we should take care of our threats. But we attacked the wrong country!

Bin Laden and al Aqueda are responsible for the terror acts on our country. They are not in Iraq and have no connection with Iraq. We attacked the wrong country while Bin Laden got stronger while we were busy killing people in an innocent country. We are now in more danger due to Bush's invasion of another country.

Please keep yourself safe. It will be harder to do that today due to Bush's War of Aggression.

Sincerely

[salin]

9. Building on this theme

"Regrettably, it seems that pulling resources out of Afghanistan beginning back in Winter of 2002, was premature. In order to make the case against Iraq, a major size of the intelligence sources that had been focused on Osama, Afghanistan, and the broader Al Qeada network were pulled off the case. The initial successes, including many arrests throughout the region and Europe, drew to a grinding halt. By the fall of 2002 there were multiple reports that al qeada - which had been disrupted - was again regrouping in the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. By the winter of 2003-04 there were reports of the Taliban retaking control of large parts of Afghanistan.

The War College, the Carnegie Foundation, and several respected retired military and members of the Senate have expressed great concern that the move on Iraq at this time has severely hampered the efforts to disrupt al qeada - and that the threat of a terrorist strike against the US has increased.

Even Condi Rice and Paul Bremer have recently warned about the likelihood of future attacks from al qeada - that could happen on US soil. IF we had continued to put all of the money into rebuilding Afghanistan (so the local would be allied economically with the US rather than WarLords - or worse, the Taliban and Al qeada), into continuing the intelligence efforts to arrest members and break up al qeada cells, and to have a large military presence to stabilize the country and prevent the retaking of parts of the country by the Taliban (as has happened), would Bush adminstration officials be warning us today - of terrorist strikes on US soil?

For many people, it appears that taking the war out of Afghanistan and away from the terrorists responsible for the frighteningly evil attacks on 9-11, and moving to Iraq at this time, distracted our national security efforts and has made us just as at risk as we were on September 11th.

The lack of evidence tying Sadam to al qeada (one of the reasons given for attacking Iraq), and the lack of evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (the other major reason given for attacking Iraq) suggest that the distraction was a tragic miscalculation on the part of this administration. One can view it as intentional (manipulation), or just misguided but the result is sadly the same. We were led to turn a way from a real threat and attack a simulated shadow threat, and in the course of doing so have harmed our ability to prevent the first threat from striking again.

[pmbryant]

10. I like this one, though with some small changes

Brief and to the point. Very good.

I would drop the reference to Iraq as an "innocent country", though, since that will likely only lead to this person getting defensive about removing Saddam Hussein ("bad guy") from power.

Also, I wouldn't use the phrase "Bush's War of Aggression", as that phrase also would probably not be received well by this person.

EDIT: Also, I would refer this person to the last chapter of Richard Clarke's book for an expert insider's view of where the real threat lies and how Bush's misdirected war is interfering with dealing with that threat.

--Peter

[HFishbine]

8. Don't you people get it?

"They" is anybody who doesn't buy into Bush's view of militarily imposed American hegemony. Yeah, "they" hit us first. Now let's go get "them."

[prolesunited]

11. Thanks for the help!

I'll let you know if I get a response.