See what happens when you throw facts at a ractionary conservative or quote their own words at them? They change their story to sound more reasonable. In his first letter, Bourget said “I am also tired of politicians’ and news media’s comparing this war to Vietnam. I think it should be compared to World War II…On Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists launched an unprovoked attack on New York City and Washington…The United States went to war to remove terrorists, and sever their support from host countries.” That’s what he said, and when someone pointed out how stupid it was he backed off.
Friday, April 7, 2006
Regarding Tom Keefe’s April 3 letter (“9/11 not comparable to Pearl Harbor”): I did not say in my letter that Iraq was connected to 9/11 (“War in Iraq can be lost by sapping morale,” March 23). I said that we are in a war on terrorism and that Saddam Hussein was a terrorist. Everyone thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction prior to our invasion.
We know that he hates the United States as much as Osama bin Laden does. The invasion was a pre-emptive strike, so that a situation like 9/11 does not happen again — something that should have been done with Osama in the first place, especially after the first attack on the World Trade Center.
This is not a war like any other. Some of our enemies are right here on American soil. Anyone who hates America and is willing to hurt us is an enemy. They don’t even have to be Islamic. Remember Oklahoma City?
My point in writing my letter was to try and get people to support our troops, so they don’t lose their focus. It was not to try and convince people to agree with a war they don’t support. A united country stands tall; a divided country will fall.
As far as the comment Mr. Keefe made about the editor printing my letter, it is his opinion that it was not factual. Other people thought it was factual and praised it. Mr. Keefe should reread it and see if he can understand the true meaning behind it.