Debating a Democrat

I'm sure you remember the "Stuck on Stupid" (9/27/05) picture of Cindy Sheehan leaning on Jesse Jackson. Well it's making the rounds again and generated a heated email exchange between Palos Verdes friend Tom, the Democrat, and your humble PV blogger. I think the debate is rather revealing. Here is Tom's first salvo.

Not having lost a child or been through a divorce I am not inclined to judge her (Sheehan). Similarly I am not inclined to judge someone who would serve his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital for cancer surgery. (Newt, as I recall) These kinds of things are very personal and shouldn't become partisan, just like an accidental shooting shouldn't become partisan. Let's stay focused on the real issues and pointed toward the right result. Even if some of us may differ from time to time on the right path to a result I think we often agree on the result we want. A free and democratic Iraq would be a great result, but I for one still question whether it is worth a half a trillion dollars (your guy's current prediction), not to mention all the young lives either lost or ground up in the process. Let's send over a bunch of old guys instead. Indeed the Vice President seems pretty handy with a gun--let's send him. The old guys have less to lose and are much less important to our future. And they always seem to be enthusiastic about wars, so let them fight. A draft for all men over 50! I like it. Solves the need for troops and the ballooning costs of Medicare and Social Security all at once.

Tom compares Sheehan with Gingrich and is enthusiastic about drafting all men over 50. Reasonable? My response follows.

I believe that Cindy Sheehan and Jesse Jackson are disgraceful anti-Americans. I would be horrified to know either one of them. But they are unimportant. Your view of the war, however, is a serious matter.

Like most Democrats and liberals, you make a fundamental mistake in assessing the war. You say that a free and democratic Iraq is not worth half a trillion dollars and the lives of 2200+ soldiers. The valid question is: What is it worth to avoid another 9/11 (or worse) attack on America?

Because of Clinton's inattention in the 1990s, we lost 3000 citizens on 9/11 and the economic cost measured in the $Trillions. Can you imagine the cost in lives and the economic cost if we were hit again with a dirty bomb, or a biological or chemical weapon? That would have happened already, in my opinion, if we had not invaded Iraq and killed a lot of the bad guys. Listen to the bin Laden videos or the Saddam tapes if you doubt their intentions.

You may have a different opinion, and that is the problem for Democrats. Until the Democratic Party reclaims the courage of Truman, Kennedy, and Lieberman, we will never let them back into the White House. So if you care about liberal social policies you would be better served by Democratic leaders who can be trusted to protect the country. Forget about Hillary.

Back to Tom.

I agree another 9-11 would be a terrible cost. It would cost more lives than Iraq and perhaps as much as 10% of the money Iraq has cost. If I thought Iraq were the enemy, I could understand the war better. Afghanistan harbored the Taliban and their training camps so that invasion made sense and many of us are not challenging it.

Saudi Arabia and UAE provided all of the terrorist killers for 9-11 and the money. Iraq did nothing as far as I have seen. Yet we attack it and Saudi Arabia and UAE get a free ride. I am still waiting for a good explanation of that enigma. You can't fight an effective war without identifying the enemy. And I don't believe the Saudi protestations that its citizens were just acting privately. Was it just a private flying club that attacked us on December 7th 1941? Nonsense. The Saudi government has funded and encouraged Wahhabi fanatics for years. With "friends" like Saudi Arabia and the UAE we don't need enemies.

But hey I stand by my plan to draft 50 plus year olds. They are always the most enthusiastic for war in every society and yet they are protected. In the old days when wars were fought on raw strength that made sense. But now it is all technology. The old folks have fewer years left so less would be lost and indeed they cost society more. OK I am a little tongue in cheek on this but it galls me to see Arab fanatics (all old guys) sending their young to die in suicide bombings and to at the same time see our elderly leaders sending young kids to die in a fight not focused on the real enemy.

Ok, so Tom thinks another 9/11 would cost around $50 Billion (10% of the Iraq war), that we should have invaded Saudi Arabia and he really wants me to sign up.

Ah Tom,
It's the non-mathematical lawyer talking. You say a WMD attack on America would cost the economy 10% of the Iraq cost, when it would be more like 10 times the Iraq cost. Just imagine a nuke in LA, just one city. Forget about living or doing any business in LA County for years after. Up to one million people killed, 10 million out of their homes, many trillions of dollars lost in property values and many more trillions in business.

Debating Saudi Arabia, UAE, and the rest is a waste of time. Taking the war over there was the key rather than fighting it in America. Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the rest of the Muslim mobsters had better wise up or they will be living in the Dark Ages with their dark age religion. The real enemy includes all the Islamic fanatics and if we kill them in Iraq that's just as good as killing them in Saudi Arabia.

And I think you are dead wrong about who supports the war. The old folks aren't the warriors. It's the kids like my grandson who signed up at 18, after 9/11, and millions more like him who are brave and believe in defending America.

Back to Tom.

I applaud your grandson for volunteering. But I submit that he is way more important to the future of this country than you are (and way more important than I am too.) We'd be better off with you and/or me fighting than him. It isn't the middle ages anymore and so our inability to put on armour and lift a heavy sword isn't a problem.

The choice of the real enemy is important. We didn't respond to Pearl Harbor by attacking Thailand on the grounds that the enemy was Asian and Buddhist. We responded to the Japanese. Iraq had no WMDs and no Wahhabis either. The 9-11 attackers were ALL Saudis and one UAE. But, of course, this administration is so closely tied to Saudi Arabia that any thought of attacking the real enemy must be set aside. For WMDs we need to focus as much on defense as offense. Where are the drugs for acute radiation poisoning? The administration won't fund them. The likely scenarios for a WMD are not the destruction of all of LA County--just areas near the Port (like us). In this case it's not the non-mathmematical lawyer talking, but the son of the physicist.

We need an open discussion of our priorities without dissenters being accused of being un-American so I appreciate your willingness to debate the issues. Everyone should be as intellectual about this as you are. And I do share the concern about Islam. If it is blasphemy to portray Mohammed poorly then it must be blasphemy to commit mass murder or launch suicide bombers in his name. And yet neither of the latter two things got the protests we are now seeing. Both got protests in their favor. That speaks volumes.

Now I'm starting to get worried. He's figured out that the nuke will be exploded in the harbor and only the South Bay (including us!!!) will be devastated and then calls me an intellectual; what nerve!

Tom,
Do you actually know a soldier? Have you seen any films of the battles in Iraq? I've got to believe your answers are No and No or you could not possibly make such a silly suggestion. ( We'd be better off with you and/or me fighting than him. )

I need to introduce you to Col. Dave McCarthy who has been to Afghan once and Iraq twice and is expecting to go back again. He would tell you what fighting is all about. Or Cpl. Brian Weiss, age 30, who joined the Marines at 29 and is heading for Jbouti in North Africa. Brian is the guy who used to run the PV farmers market on Sundays. He would tell you about the training they get in hand-to-hand combat so they are prepared before they ever get into battle. Sgt. Johnny Walton (my grandson) could tell you what it's like to jump out of an airplane carrying an M16 and an 80 pound pack.

I'd bet a lot that even a biker/swimmer such as you would not make it through basic training. As for me, fugetaboutit!! So let's not waste any more time on silliness.

I beg you to get serious about the real enemy (The 9-11 attackers were ALL Saudis and one UAE.) Do you expect me to believe that you would be right behind the war effort if we had attacked Saudi Arabia and the UAE instead of Iraq? That is very disingenuous!!

We attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan in response to 9/11. And Bush made clear at the time that if you are a State supporting terrorists you were on our list (the Axis of Evil). Iraq was number one because it (1) was in violation of the 1991 Gulf War cease fire; (2) had been firing on US planes for a decade; (3) was in violation of 17 or so UN resolutions; (4) paid the families of Hammas suicide bombers; (5) was re-arming aided by corrupt governments (France, Russia, China to name a few) using the oil-for-food mechanism, while their people were suffering; (6) were likely working on WMD programs; (Want to bet that the WMD materials show up in Syria. The Saddam tapes point in that direction.) and finally, (7) We had to start somewhere and Iraq is a strategically good place.

As for defence, I agree that much more needs to be done. First we need to secure the borders. Do you support a security fence along the Mexican border? Do you support racial profiling at airports, etc.? Politics is getting in the way of our defence. Look at the misery the Administration is taking over the wire-tapping of overseas calls between foreign terrorists and their agents in the US. In the past such defensive activities would be roundly supported by both political parties. I blame the Democrats for this huge problem. I too would like drugs for acute radiation poisoning but it is a matter of cost/benefit tradeoff and I would prefer that we spend the money on stopping the bomb before it goes off.

Finally, I wholeheartedly agree that these are the kinds of discussions that should be happening all over the country, especially in the Congress. Let's write our Senators Boxer and Feinstein with that message; a letter signed by Tom and Bill.
Now that would speak volumes!

Tom's next edition is in the comments. But I am getting frustrated and may not respond. Tom is a smart guy and a friend. What should I do? What would you do?