A critique please.

[RMJ]

Background:

I sent MoveOn's WMD petition to a bunch of family and friends, and got this response back from my BIL:

"Sorry, I can't support such a call. Even if there were no WMDs (and I believe there were), the brutality of that regime was obvious. I believe this president has learned from past mistakes of letting brutal dictators go unchecked. Hitler, for example.

I can see where people who do not understand military intelligence would be "suspicious." Unfortunately, intelligence is not a black and white business. I've only seen one piece that was blatantly wrong out of the flood of reports the White House had received and made public. I support what the president and his cabinet did at the time, because to reveal any more to the world would have put American operatives, supporters, and special forces in mortal danger.

I believe we need to stop second guessing and concentrate on phase II, bringing Irag back to order, establishing a peaceful government and getting out of there. This will take time, and better planning than I've seen so far. Americans need to remember that we were in Germany from 1945 to the mid 1990's in force. I'd rather we stop pointing fingers and get down to the work at hand.

I would support the President's decision regardless of his party affiliation and strongly resent attempts by either party to discredit a sitting president for political gain. This is no different from the Republicans going after Clinton, the only difference is that the Democrats are using the valiant service of our armed forces for their country as a launching pad for political attack. In a way, that makes what the democrats are doing worse.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one."

I do not want this to devolve into mess where our family is torn apart. This is my response, what, if anything, needs to be changed to maintain family harmony?

"You're right, we will have to disagree. What the Republicans did to Clinton was wrong, because it was nobody's business. Clinton lied because he didn't want his wife to find out he was having an affair. That makes him a lousy husband. But if Bush lied about the reasons he sent our military to war, he needs to be held accountable. 210 of our soldiers, not to mention thousands of Iraqis are dead. Americans serve with the belief that their sacrifice will never be treated casually. I will not let them die for a lie. If he did everything right, he has nothing to fear, does he?

What about the other lies and false information that Bush gave about WMD in his State of the Union speech? Bush said that there was an Al-Qaeda connection to Iraq, a claim that has been thoroughly debunked. Who put that lie in the SOTU?

Bush also said that Iraq had:

1. 25,000 liters of anthrax
2. 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin
3. 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent
4. 30,000 chemical munitions
(These four alone add up to over a million pounds of material, which Rumsfeld said we "knew" were hidden to the northwest of Baghdad and in and around Tikrit. Well, where are they? Hard to hide, considering we've got 150,000 troops on the ground and advanced satellite tracking)

5. several mobile biological weapons labs
(The two we found, were later determined to be mobile balloon filling facilities sold to them by the British. Weather balloons, conventional artillery practice balloons; not that I could understand how anyone could believe that CANVAS covered trucks were supposed to be used in the manufacture of deadly biological weapons in the first place. That must've been a pretty tight weave on that canvas.)

6. advanced nuclear weapons development program
(Oh yeah, the parts of a centrifuge that scientist buried under his rosebush 12 years ago. Of course, he's only got a few pieces and it's useless if it gets any dust inside it and it's been buried under a shrub for over a decade....)

7. a design for a nuclear weapon
(So does anyone with access to the net.)

8. five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb
(That would be ONE. The inspectors discovered that they had some success and did on a couple of occasions manage to enrich several grams of uranium. Of course you need 60 pounds to make a weapon....)

9. high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production
(These would be the tubes that the IAEA, MI-6, and the CIA state are absolutely NOT SUITABLE for nuclear weapons)

No one is defending Hussein. I agree he was a brutal man and that everyone is better off without him in power. But war should be a last resort, not a convenient response. There is always more than one way to solve a problem, and violence is almost never the answer. The point is that Bush unequivocally stated that America was in mortal danger and needed to pre-emptively strike another nation to protect itself, and that is turning out to be not true. Because of that assertion thousands of people are dead.

It is extraordinarily difficult, some would say impossible, to impose democracy on a people. Freedom is earned. You have to want it badly enough to take it. That is why, if any one was going to overthrow Hussein, it should have been the Iraqi people themselves. Could we have helped them? Of course. But to just bluster our way in, with half a plan, assuming they'd be thrilled to receive us was beyond stupid, it was criminal.

And for what? Their lives are better now? They're terrorized daily, they haven't had clean water, electricity or a steady supply of fresh food in months. Their children are dying of dysentery and their wounded from lack of medical supplies. And what about us? Are we safer? Our soldiers continue to die in Afghanistan, (the war that everybody forgot.) Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose, plotting, even now, unspeakable horrors, and with new ammunition considering the ill will the rest of the world holds for us after the colossal blunder that is Iraq. Hussein may or may not be secretly in control of the insurgents that are daily upping the death toll. The weapons, IF he had them, are scattered to the four winds, exactly the thing we didn't want to have happen. Our allies are exasperated, our enemies are enraged, and Bush decides to put on his best cowboy swagger and say, "Bring 'em on." How is this helping?

You obviously believe the person who got us into this mess is capable of getting us out and I don't. But more importantly than that, withholding information to protect "American operatives, supporters, and special forces" is different from blatant lies to convince the American public to support an idea that would otherwise be insupportable. I do not support this investigation because I am, "using the valiant service of our armed forces for their country as a launching pad for political attack." But because I believe what Truman said was true, "The buck stops here." I don't know if it's true in the Army, but in the Navy, whatever happens on your watch you are responsible for. If troops were put in harm's way under false pretenses then that is wrong. And Bush needs to be held accountable.

Thanks IndianaGreen for your info for my second and third paragraphs. Well DU, are there inaccuracies? I don't want a wrong fact to discredit my entire argument. Do I sound as ticked as I feel about his condscending tone? Should it be shorter, am I overwhelming him with information? Do I hit send or not?

[trumad]

1. The guy has a pre-emptive mind

who has no clue of the ramifications of er....pre-emption. He obviously feels comfortable attacking a country that was in no way a danger to this country. Ask him about Iran, NK, or any other country that poses supposed danger to the US and he'll say the same thing. ATTACK! He obviously feels that occupying another Country makes this country safer. You won't get through to him so you might as well move on.... BTW: I betcha he's a ChickenHawk?

[RMJ]

4. Nope

Served in the Army. I was in the Navy, hence my reminder to him in the final paragraph. Hopefully, it will get him to stop saying "some people don't understand military intelligence" if he remembers even Democrats serve.

[yella_dawg]

12. I was the primary designer of the...

Electronic Warfare Suite on the U2 spy plane. Trust me, as for "military intelligence", both your BIL and Shrub are full of it.

yella

[jiacinto]

7. Wait a second--denoucning someone is not going to

convince them to change their mind.

[lcordero]

2. I feel that it's better to not push the issue

because they will be even more entrenched in their thinking. Eventually they will come around. Keep in mind that even if they do agree with you they might not sign anyways. I do not like petitions because I do not like signing my name to anything. I feel that it gives third-parties a better chance to spam and send unsolicited phone calls.

[RMJ]

3. Signing, was always up to him

and frankly I don't care that he isn't going to sign.

My concern is that he could have just deleted my email and ignored it, but he didn't. He took the time to respond. If I don't refute his argument my silence will imply agreement.

[lcordero]

5. Send him a refutation then

but include that if this administration didn't have anything to hide then they would have invited the UN Inspectors back into the country.

[Az]

6. The cure is worse than the disease

This noble appeal to humanity is false. There are a number of countries in far worse condition. Why was Iraq chosen? Much of the brutality waved in our faces to create the image of Saddam as a villain came from the Kurdish revolt. Guess what, we left the Kurds out to hang and incited them to revolt. Revolutions are resisted by the powers that be. People die. Revolution is not polite. We stepped away when we were needed. Now we site this event as a reason to attack?! Sorry it doesn't wash. The reason for the attack was oil and power (emphasis on power). Humanity was the rationalization sold to the left to soften their objections. It was never the intent.

If Humanity had been the intent then there would have been a better plan in place to maintain the civil order. Instead the bulk of the planning seems to have been how to get the Iraqi oil flowing again. Now the Iraqi's are beset with power losses (shades of California) and a host of other issues. There are cholera outbreaks occurring. The people are coming together and demanding that the American occupiers get out now. That is what we are. Occupiers. People are suffering in more real ways now than they ever were under Saddam and they are no more free than they were before.

If they were free they would have erected a Fundimentalist Theocracy by now. We are bringing them freedom on our terms and not allowing them the freedom they desire. It is odd that the Right sees the sense of a secular government in Iraq but is trying to erode it in the States.

[LearnedHand]

8. Oh, man, RMJ, what a sticky situation!

I totally agree with what you wrote, but I also know the exasperation of trying to talk about this situation with family members who blindly support der Feuhrer.

The response from your relative seemed to be reasonable and thoughtful, but you might consider whether this person is actually open to a thoughtful exchange of ideas with the idea of reaching a better understanding. If so, by all means, send your reply.

If not, however, and if that person will come to the pResident's defense no matter what, I think "the facts" in your reply will be totally wasted. I wonder if, instead, you might pick out the heart of your relative's reply -- the bit about disposing Saddam -- and go with that, something along the lines of the following:

Yes, I totally agree with you about Saddam Hussein: he was a horrible man who did horrible things to his people, and he needed to go. But I'm really worried: I cannot figure out why a country that could go to the moon, develop atomic science and bring WWII to an end, and invent the internet could not manage to find a single man and bring him to trial for violation of human rights.

And I'm worried about another thing: Right after September 9, 2001, the White House confirmed that its intelligence showed that Osama bin Laden and his (Arab) al Quaeda operatives were clearly responsible for the terrorist attacks on the United States. So we rightly stormed into Afghistan and overturned the Taliban, but again, we failed to locate and arrest bin Laden.

Given these two things, and given that our troops continue to die day after day, weeks after Bush declared the war over, I'm very concerned about the continued safety of our troops in Iraq when our vastly superior military strength and intelligence has been unable to find two individual men.

I don't know; what do you think? My point, I think, is that burying your relative in a flurry of facts will only worsen the situation, because these facts don't figure into the justification by Republicans of what the White House has done. The facts simply don't seem to matter. If this is, in fact, the case, then we MUST NOT use facts to try to convince them. We have to find some other way to get through to them the absurdity, idiocy, and danger of the White House's actions and policy.

Much good luck with your relative!
'Fly

[RMJ]

9. I think he might be open to discussion

It seemed long to me too, but the reason I included so many facts was because of his statement, "I've only seen one piece that was blatantly wrong out of the flood of reports the White House had received and made public."

I wanted to show him that practically everything has been proved to be wrong and we're not even investigating it yet.

I also think that by showing that I'm not making this about how I feel about Bush personally, but about the facts, I'll have more credibility.

[LearnedHand]

11. Maybe just a few facts at a time, then?

Again, you might not want to overwhelm him. Choose the most agregious and start there. But if you take that approach, be very sure your facts come from a source that is "unimpeachable" in HIS eyes; i.e., if you get your facts from a well-known Democratic source, they might not be credible in his eyes.

The most promising, I think, is the specific list of horrible things Saddam was supposed to have. Since Dumbya publically announced this list, you might begin with that. But I'd still condense it to just the list and save the details for later.

You might ask him, "Here was a specific list Bush gave the American people. I wonder where he got this specific information and why we here in America ARE NOT getting enough of an account about why we can't find this stuff."

After all, we've been involved in the world's most expensive scavenger hunt, and we haven't even found the first item on the list!

[RMJ]

16. I wondered...

if I might not just delete the "list" out of the middle of the reply, but I thought that might make it read more emotional and less factual.

Also I know if I say, "I wonder where he got this specific information..." His answer will be an even more strenuous assertion that the public doesn't need to know and that it puts operatives at risk.

[LearnedHand]

19. Yes, you're right...

...about that, RMJ. Asking where he got the specific info is NOT the right question. But the list might still be the place to begin. And deleting the list would leave the emotional stuff and take out the factual stuff.

I think what I'm leaning on is addressing his logic with *quiet* logic in return. Present the specific list, without your questions and interpretations, and include the reference to the speech in which that list was presented to the public (was it the SOTUS?). Then maybe you can point out the extreme disconnect?

[RMJ]

20. yeah...LOL

I did get a little snarky in the comments section.

(We need an embarrassed icon)

[quilp]

10. I think you are wasting your time with this guy!

Anyone who wrote what he did is beyond persuation or help.

[RMJ]

13. he's worth saving

In addition to the fact that he's my sister's husband, he's a generally nice guy. And even he admits the administration has screwed up:

"I believe we need to stop second guessing and concentrate on phase II, bringing Irag back to order, establishing a peaceful government and getting out of there. This will take time, and better planning than I've seen so far."

emphasis mine

[LearnedHand]

14. I respectfully disagree!

This guy is an academic open-minded seeker compared to the dittoeheads in my family. My family doesn't even bother to ask questions or to disagre with me, or anything! They just spam emails to me straight from the desk of, apparently, Savage Weiner and his ilk. It's sickening.

RMJ's relative, on the other hand, seems somewhat open to a halfway intelligent discussion of real ideas!

[1monster]

15. Resonable response to his letter...

And does not show the anger you must feel at his attitude. I've seen responses much worse than his, so it is possible he is open to discussion. Keep the facts to back up your opinion. Too many people in this country are UNAWARE of the true facts, they just get the spin when even a whiff of the truth hits the air waves.

Don't expect to change his mind. Right now, you are just giving him some food for thought. Mind changing takes time....

[RMJ]

18. Thanks n/t

[TahitiNut]

17. The question has never been whether Saddam was 'bad'.

It has always been "What's next?" Lacking any acceptable answer to that question, deposing just Saddam or Saddam and his entire regime has been seen, both during Gulf War I and afterwards, as mere vandalism -- akin to tossing all Iraqis from the frying pan into the fire.

Thus, two fundamental questions (both the preemptive doctrine and the result of such an action) have been finessed by essentially meaningless discussions of whether the 'evidence' either existed or whether it proved anything. It makes almost no difference. The result has been, if anything, worse than what was foreseen as the very reason to desist in deposing Saddam.

Saddam's continuing (purported) 'criminal behavior' was effectively prevented and ameliorated, both by sanctions and by humanitarian aid. All the (purported) 'crimes against his own people' preceded GW1! As rationalizations, they may have added to the reasons for GW1, but did not justify GW2.

Saddam's regime was 'protected' almost identically to the BushSr regime. The Iraqi's have been Dan-Quayled.

[linazelle]

21. Great response...I would add the other lie about the IAEA

report that Bush said contained info that Hussein was planning to acquire WMD. The IAEA denied making this claim and the Whitehouse later retracted the claim.

[Rose Siding]

22. I would encourage you to continue the discourse

I have a cousin who will debate and actually listens to my points. I recognize some of Rush's glop sometimes in what he says and since that's usually disputed with fact, my cuz hears another side and has agreed with me at times.

You'll be able to tell if it's slipping into rancor- you can be gracious, apologize and stick to other topics.

But especially if you care for this person, give him a *chance* to see your side of the issues.