Can you really imagine what the stance of our government would have been after 9/11 with Al Gore as president? Would we have entered into negotiations with al-Qaeda in a tent somewhere? Would we have given them the impression that maybe we deserved the retaliation of the Arab world and that we needed to look introspectively for the reason for it?
I cannot imagine that Gore would have taken the position to declare war as President Bush did. It was truly a blessing that Gore was not in charge on 9/11.
History will show that taking the offensive with radical Islam was the right thing. They seem to only understand violence and confrontation with the "infidels." I wish that the liberal media that disagrees with this would ease up on their endless nitpicking of what has been done post-9/11 by a president who is trying his best to have America survive.
Ned A. Garrett
Four more years of this?
To the editor:
This is in response to Nancy Boyer's letter to the editor published on Sunday, July 11. It appears that Boyer is grasping at straws to defend one of the flawed White House reasons for going to war in Iraq.
The Bush administration has been dishing up disinformation from Day One and is still at it. The fact that a couple of meetings occurred between some Iraqi leaders and some al-Qaeda leaders is not collaboration, as she admits. But, neither does it lead to the erroneous conclusion that Iraq was a terrorist threat to the United States.
In regard to how Boyer connected the dots, how about connecting the real important ones this way? Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction (U.N. inspectors were about to find this out before the war). Iraq had not colluded with al-Qaeda in any terrorist activity. Iraq was not a threat to the U.S., either imminently or in the foreseeable future.
Connect these dots and the obvious conclusion is that the invasion of Iraq was wrong. We could have saved the thousands of Iraqi and U.S. casualties, as well as the hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars that we don't have, and concentrated on capturing Osama bin Laden, who is still at large.
Bush is already in denial, stating that the Iraq war was justified and that the U.S. is safer from terrorism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Terrorist attacks throughout the world have increased since the war. We have failed to capture Osama bin Laden. We were warned that a major attack may occur during the conventions or prior to the election. So how are we safer? Our policies have only helped al-Qaeda recruitment. So how are we safer?
Our treatment of prisoners of war has only increased disdain for the U.S. throughout the world. We have squandered the good will of long-time allies in Europe with our policies. So how are we now safer and how is this war now justified? In plain simple language, "The invasion of Iraq was not justified."
I submit that this president has already done more harm to the U.S. that any other president in U.S. history. He has raided the treasury for the benefit of the rich and to pursue a wrongful war. He is decimating the environment for the benefit of big business. He has alienated our long- term allies abroad. He, himself, has become the most disliked person in the entire world as evidenced by the demonstrations against our policies when he travels abroad and by the results of international polls. Do we really want this guy around for another four years?
Richard J. McEvoy