I'm not someone who joins up with folks who think it's better to never defend a nation's or individual rights in traditional legal ways; neither am I writing just as someone whose many acquaintances in life and family before him defended liberty in USA law and military service from WW1 to date, some of them therein making the ultimate sacrifice.

 

One thing that has become eminently clear in the past year is that the Mid-East continues to have a long-standing element within it, certainly not likely everyone but a number, which uses actual and bluffed violence and threats thereof to hold knives to the throats of their own people, each other's people, and the world at large...talk about the ultimate "blood for oil".

 

As 9/11 showed, that said element sometimes branches out when its bluffs aren't called, killing as many USA citizens (and others elsewhere) in one attack as can be killed as soldiers...and the constant striking at our troops shows that element hasn't given up its wish to strike at Americans or anyone else not buying into their remote control via intimidation...you'd think it would be obvious to naysayers at this point that ANY departure coinciding with the relevant element's rhetoric of recruitment and "proof" of efficacy of their violence certainly can't be expected to cure the violence or way of threats...even dropping oil like a hot potato in favor of anything else might roil such element into greater threats unless oil is consumed.

 

I hear Speaker Pelosi and MoveOn, inter alia, today saying we must leave Iraq immediately and in toto to keep America safe and to repair a reason a Mid-East element regardless of nationality uses threats against us...a reason Bush nor any other American has ever had anything to do with. The Speaker and such now say further what we must do is let that Mid-East element in its diversity fester, let anyone at all into the USA and let them have ID, subprime access and lodging, loans, whatever they need and totally untested or here contrary to U.S. laws, use all the money that would be spent on the war on terror on that instead or use such money to pay for government-owned homes, government-only healthcare, and a population well-policed by locals as they decide who must be shifted as the sands of "critical" need to diffuse foreign terrorist recruiting arises...all amid a culture wherein jobs and imports and exports and farms would not be the priority given the nature of mass housing development.

 

It appearing: the non-Conservative alternative to Iraq action and the war on terror would be at least if not likely well in excess of the amount Bush would spend; that the non-Conservative alternative is not tethered in the least to why a Mid-East element acts as it does (including, obviously, that it is not driven by nor reserved for hatred of non-Muslim religions); given that a "who cares?" giveaway mentality is what provided folks like Mohammed Atta their pre-9/11 mobility; and given that at this point it's obvious a certain Mid-East mentality of bluffing/doing violence against each other and the world transcends any concept even if true of some civil war, wherefore, I must at this juncture conclude President Bush knows best what needs to be done in Iraq versus the only alternatives yet put forth by his political opposition.

 

I therefore support President Bush in any request he may make in relation to USA involvement in the Mid-East.