Dear Mr Melman,
On Aug 9th I received in my inbox a message from you and your committee. Although I'm a Democrat, I try to keep an open mind - so I listen to both sides of every argument. Even yours. But this time you and your party have gone beyond the pale.
In politics, there are turning points that can define a political party for decades to come. Yesterday's defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman in the Democrat primary in Connecticut is such a moment. Because he stood for a strong national defense and victory in Iraq, Joe Lieberman was successfully targeted for defeat.
For a political party to reject a respected Senator who just six years ago was its candidate for Vice President is virtually without precedent. It speaks volumes about the new Democrat Party: if you stand for a strong defense and victory in the War on Terror, you have no place in the party and you must be purged.
"Purged for supporting a strong defense"? Ken, with all due respect, what fresh crock of shit is this?
In one sense you are correct, it is unprecedented, it does represent the rise of a New Democratic Party in America - one which obviously makes people like yourself quite afraid, what with the impending bloodbath you're facing in November - even I dare say, driving you to brink of Dementia, because that's just about all that explains your current behavior. Just look at this: Go on, look at it - I know you wrote it and put it out there, but did you even look at it first?
The message from Connecticut is clear, and Ned Lamont isn't alone. He is joined by Rep. John Murtha, architect of the Democrats' position on Iraq and the man who wants to be the next House Majority Leader, who claims America is more dangerous than Iran and North Korea and says, "We've become the enemy." And by Howard Dean, who calls the idea of victory in Iraq "just plain wrong."
Now Ken, I'm sure you realize that Democrats can actually read, right? We know how to Google! (I've even heard of some Republicans who are familiar with "The Internets". It's "a series of Tubes", don't cha know?) And it's amazing too, with it you can just go look up what John Murtha actually said a realize that he didn't say that "America is more dangerous than Iran and North Korea"...
He didn't even say "We" have become the enemy, he said our troops have become to seen as the enemy by the Iraqi people.
From the Washington Post:
QUESTION: Congressman, Republicans say that Democrats who are calling for withdrawal are a advocating a cut-and-run strategy. What do you say to that criticism?
MURTHA: It's time to bring them home. They've done everything they can do. The military has done everything they can do. This war has been so mishandled from the very start. Not only was the intelligence bad, the way they disbanded the troops. There's all kinds of mistakes have been made.
They don't deserve to continue to suffer. They're the targets. They have become the enemy. Eighty percent of the Iraqis want us out of there. The public wants us out of there.
Let me just emphasize Murtha's point by noting that most polls today state that 62% of the Public Disapprove of the Presidents handling of Iraq. 59% feel that the Iraq wasn't worth fighting for. 53% feel that the U.S. military forces in Iraq should be decreased. 57% feel that there should be a timetable for withdrawal. 64% feel that the Bush Administration does not have a clear plan for Iraq.
Sorry, but "Just Wait" is not a plan. Murtha Continued.
There's times you just got to -- you got to change your mind about this thing, you got to change your direction. There's times when you just got to say, "What's the right thing to do?" The right thing to do -- our troops are the enemy, they're the targets.
When I went to Anbar province, General Huck (ph) said to me, "You know, the thing that's so discouraging? We got all this armor and everything, and the snipers are shooting right below the helmets." They blowing the turrets off tanks no matter how much armor that we put out there.
We're the targets. We're uniting the enemy against us. And there's terrorism all over the world that there wasn't before we went into Iraq.
I do recall that the President himself has pointed out that the world is an increasingly dangerous place.
It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America.
I also recall that the definition of continuing to repeatedly do something and suddenly expect a different result from that which you've been receiving - for four years now -- is insanity.
Ken, my friend - (and I can call you my friend right?) - I say this purely as a friend, not a partisan, this isn't the Democrat in me speaking, it's the fellow American talking.
One American to another: Ken, I'm afraid you've lost your fucking mind.
As Hunter pointed out today - as many Iraqis have died in the last few months as Americans died on 9-11. The Violence and strife is increasing, not decreasing. If our goal was to bring stabiilty and peace to the region - we are failing at that goal. When Howard Dean said that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," - it's clear that he meant that fighting the war they way were are now - is a losing strategy.
He also said:
"I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years," Dean said. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops.
Right now, Iraq is the shooting gallery and our troops are the sitting ducks - they're nothing more than the bait in the flytrap and that needs to change. Both Murtha and Dean are talking about what we should be doing - which is Fight Terrorism - not Iraqis. The Iraqi people are not our enemy.
I know someone may have forgetten to slip you the memo in all the confusion over the last couple years, but it turns out that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11.
Yes, really. Nothing. President said so over two years ago.
US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.
The comments - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," Mr Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.
Many Americans believe that some of the hijackers were Iraqi - when none were - and that the attacks had been orchestrated by Baghdad, despite any concrete evidence to support that.
Saddam had no links to Al Qaeda either, the CIA has long ago shown that bin Laden didn't trust Saddam - he considered him an Apostate ruler, one worthy of nothing except annihilation.
And I don't care what Rick (lame duck) Sanitorium says - Saddam didn't have WMD's. Saddam wasn't trying to restart his Nuclear Program and even if he had -- every indication was that he wouldn't have used it against us anyway.
Not unless we attacked him...uh...oops.
Now his using them against Iran I'm not so sure of... but if he had done that, wouldn't he pretty much be our bestest of buddies again? Y'know, considering and all...
According to what Gen. Abizaid told Lindsey Graham just last week, there are only 1000 Al Qaeda fighters left in Iraq. (And all indications are that they came there specificallly to fight us after we removed Saddam) If we left, they'd have no one to fight. They'd be the sitting ducks without the support of the locals who want us out, and don't you think 200,000 Iraqi troops can handle a measly 1000 Al Qaeda guys without us looking over their shoulder every step of the way?
If they can't after all this time, then whatever nitwit trained and equiped them should get shit-canned - like right now. I wonder who that could be..?
Oh, and Zarqawi is dead - did you hear? It was even on Fox News, so I'm sure you saw it- right? We got him with a bomber, didn't even need any troops. (We even have pictures - lots of them - see?) No boots on the ground needed. Point and Shoot. BOOM. Gone. Now we're ready for next problem.
That's how this should be handled, ok?
And by the way, you really need to give Dick Cheney a call - he seems like he needs hug. and you're probably just the guy to give it to him. (I'm just saying... you seem like you really know how to give a guy the affection he really needs)
Vice President Dick Cheney, [who] went so far as to suggest that the ouster of Mr. Lieberman might encourage "al Qaeda types."
"It's an unfortunate development, I think, from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, to see a man like Lieberman pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security strategy,'' Mr. Cheney said in a telephone interview with news service reporters.
Is Cheney saying that those who opposed Leiberman, support Al Qaeda? That the only viable strategy for battling terrorism is to continue on the present course of increased destruction in Iraq and nothing else? C'mon - he's just kidding right?
I understand that Politics has become a bloodsport in recent years - that people have grown very sharp elbows. But to suggest that the Democratic Party has become the party of the Taliban is just plain nuts. Nobody would seriously suggest such a thing would they?
Oh wait -- what's this column I see from Cal Thomas on Taliban Democrats.
They used to be "San Francisco Democrats," a phrase coined by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick to describe the party's 1984 convention. But they have now morphed into Taliban Democrats because they are willing to "kill" one of their own, if he does not conform to the narrow and rigid agenda of the party's kook fringe.
Kill one of their own? Somebody tell Thomas this was an election, not a lynching. People lose elections all the time, just ask George - he's lost two of them and he's still around isn't he?
And "Kook fringe"? Would that be the 59% of all American "Kooks" who think Iraq isn't worth fighting for or the 57% who think we should have a timetable for redeployment?
What is wrong with Democrats? Can't they see that when the face of their party belongs to ultra-leftists like George McGovern, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry, they lose? For those who still believe not only in a strong two-party system, but also in compromise and conciliation in order to promote the general welfare and seek the common good, the Lieberman defeat strikes an especially harmful blow.
Compromise and Concilliation? When are where exactly have Republicans engaged in compromise and concilliation with Democrats during the last six years? Heck, during the last 12? Democratic Bills go nowhere. Conference Commitee Reports get signed by the President without the approval of both Houses. Republicans have even threated the "Nuclear Option" of revoking the filibuster, and people like Cal Thomas claim that Democrats aren't concilliatory enough? What are they supposed to do next, genuflect and kiss the ring as Republicans pass?
Pardon my plain clear English but - FUCK THAT.
I have to say it again, this is nuts. I know I may be waisting my time here - I realize that the deep and serious dementia that seems to have gripped the Republican party may be too strong. I'm reminded of line by Poe (the singer, not the poet) : "You can't talk to a PSYCHO - like a normal human being"
But not All Republicans fall into this category. I'm a fair minded person Ken, so I have to point out to you that some of your own seemed to have jumped the shark in recent days. Like Senator John Warner who suggested the time may have come to end our involvement in Iraq.
The 2002 resolution authorizing military force, Warner noted, called for U.S. forces to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and to enforce all relevant U.N. resolutions.
"Many of those missions set out and envisioned by the Congress when it gave this authority - namely, the toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime - have been achieved," Warner said.
Abizaid didn't respond directly to Warner's suggestion but said he was hopeful that civil war could still be avoided.
Is Warner a member of the "Taliban" now? He seems to be on the right track and is in sync with the majority of the American people - like Murtha and Dean - but at this point I have to admit that I think Cheney and Thomas are pretty much Meshuggah. I mean, Dick shot a man in the face then went off to have a few cocktails at dinner. That ain't normal, dig? But you're not a Psycho are ya Ken? Geez, I hope not - cuz that would kinda suck for the Republicans wouldn't it?
Let me try and break this down for ya - in normal person talk.
This Administration, with it's lackeys in Congress -- including Leiberman - have been stearing this country directly into an Iceberg called Iraq. It's time to turn the wheel and avoid this disaster before it rips an economic, foreign policy and military hole in our side so deep we'll never be able to patch it up.
We're taking on water Ken, and it's getting deeper every second. Every time another innocent Iraqi is killed in the sectarian strife that has been unfolding every since the bombing of the Golden Mosque, every time one of our own soldiers is killed by an IED or sniper the water rises another inch, and every week it keep rising faster.
According to last weeks Armed Services Commitee Hearing we're the verge of a Civil War in Iraq. If one breaks out, it will be the Sunni Insurgents (with al Qaeda ties) against the Shiite Militia and their Death Squads (who along with Prime Minister Malliki support Hezbollah). Which side do we take? Al Qaeda or Hezbollah? What's it gonna be Ken - Paper or Plastic? You've got to make a decision, which one will it be?
But then again wouldn't it be wiser to just get out of the way - let them kill each other and simply have Allah sort it all out? You Republicans certain understand the rationale of letting them die over there, so we don't have to feel sorry for them over here. (Re: Bosnia and Darfur), right?
And maybe then we might be able to focus on like -- AL QAEDA. Possibly even finally catch or kill Bin Laden and Mullah Omar, y'know - the guys who actually did plan and execute 9-11? Seems to me like they're still at it, and that fighting terrorism generally works better when you fight actual terrorists!
I'm just saying - that it's worth considering is all.
Your (Democrat) Friend.