Tuesday, November 30, 2004

response and response

In a message dated 11/30/2004 4:15:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Bill " writes:
>MK:>>My thanks for your note.>>While we may have our disagreements, I think we can agree that putting >dedicated Americans like your husband in harm's way is something that should >be done only in the most urgent situations. As you suggest, "if it wasn't >worth dying for, the U.S. shouldn't have gone their in the first place." My >feeling about Iraq is precisely that;

I'm sure it is.... and on that we disagree.

>we had many other options for keeping >America and our allies safe from terrorism; the desperately sad situation >we're in, as you suggest, is that too many have already given their lives >for an absolutely terrible decision by our government.

terrible decision or imperfect execution? at some point you have to take action on your threats.

>>As for Clinton's military actions, I have spoken out and written a great >deal against all kinds of military action

um, I've slept since then. ;D

-- "collateral damage" should not >be an acceptable part of any policy, and certainly not if we hope to bring >peace and security to a world that increasingly distrusts us.

well, there's idealism and there's realism. and I think generally people are going to distrust whoever is in a powerful position (that's why France is okay! ;D) particularly this generation.

>>In my view, the best support for the troops is to demand on wise >policymaking by informed, thoughtful leadership, and I think that's clear in >my piece.>

yes, we just don't see eye to eye on "informed" my spouse tends to be of a mind that Iraq was mainly a strategic move. We're in a war on terror and where do many terrorists come from? now we're in the middle of it.

>My best to you and your husband, and thanks again for taking a few minutes >to send along your thoughts.>

Thank you for taking the time to respond. on a side note... my husband blogs occasionaly about this,here are a couple links relative to the discussion: