I’m troubled and dismayed that many conservatives are buying the elite media line that we are a “country divided.” If a “country divided” means that the presidential election was decided by 3.7 million votes, I certainly don’t think we’re a country divided. It's my understanding that JFK won the presidency against Nixon by less votes than Bush won in the state of Ohio alone. Did they say we were divided then? Frankly, I think the evidence points to the fact that our country is unified and strong.
We are unified and strong in our determination to fight against terrorism. Even democrats want to fight terrorism – they just believe they have “better” methods to do it. Putin, in his post-election statement, recognized the strength of our determination when he said that Bush’s reelection indicates Americans are not afraid of terrorists.
We are unified and strong in our determination to preserve traditional marriage. All eleven of the states that faced the question of gay marriage last Tuesday voted to ban it. The American people clearly do not want the homosexual extremist agenda forced down their throats by the likes of Gavin Newsom and a handful of activist judges in Massachusetts.
Some may say that we are “divided” over the abortion issue. The truth of the matter is that only 1/3 of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all situations. And studies indicate that Generation Y is much more pro-life than their forebears.
The elite media would like you to believe that we’re divided. But don’t buy their rhetoric. Don’t believe their lie. Perhaps they disagree with how the election turned out. Perhaps they are “divided” and disagree with the president’s position on the war and his stand for moral values. But that doesn’t mean the American people are divided. We have a long history of disagreement on various issues – ever since the founding of our country. If it’s merely the fact that there are two strong movements in this country that disagree with each other, and that makes us “divided,” it can be said that America has always been “divided.” I think we Americans are just as unified, if not more unified, in this generation than in many previous generations. We are steadfast and determined. We will win this war. And we will never quit the fight to defend and promote our values and principles. [Even if we live in California and it’s extremely depressing sometimes!]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Bravo! Well put, Amy.
I too have been SO frustrated by the post-election media commentary - they just don't get it, do they? I was watching the pre-concession-speech blather on Wednesday and heard the commentators talk about the 'surprising turn of events,' asking each other, 'Well, what went wrong? How did we call this one wrong? How were our exit polls so far off from the actual result?' I just wanted to shout at the screen, 'Because you PLANNED it all! You were TRYING to throw the election to Kerry, so you deliberately polled 60% women and focused heavily on urban areas in an attempt to skew the early figures so you could try calling the election for Kerry!' I just keep hoping that they'll overreach their hand long enough for the mask to slip - I thought the Dan Rather scandal would put big cracks in their credibility, but that seems to have blown over.
~Rose
Amy, I'll be your "dittohead" for today. ;) Well said!
Along the same lines, found this short blurb from some editorial in Wisconsin today. If only all Kerry supporters could have this attitude:
(11/03/04 WISC-TV Madison)
This isn't going to be easy for many of you to hear -- this is after all -- as the election results clearly show -- clearly Kerry Country listening to this editorial. But unlike four years ago, there is no
dispute. This country has re-elected George Bush president, unambiguously. Republicans rule the land, most of them conservative Republicans. And like it or not that demands respect. President Bush's policies and values carried the day. We can argue all we want about being a split country. We're not. We're a country that has chosen George Bush and a Republican Congress and a conservative agenda. Yes, there is
room for a loyal opposition, and yes there is room for reaching out. But the loyal opposition is in a position of persuading, not leading, and the reaching out must come from the Democrats. Said one Democrat," I've now realized I'm no longer part of the mainstream." He's right. The mainstream has changed. The shoe is on the other foot -- a Right shoe --
on a Left foot. And that's how we're going to be walking for the next four years -- in the shoes we chose.
I'm Canadian. I'm scared now that Bush is in for another 4 years. Our country may now have to do missile testing because the US is urging us to. We prefer peace to war.
Another reason I'm scared is that Bush is fighting Iraq-Osama Bin Laden isn't even from Iraq, he's from Afghanistan! The UN didn't back Bush to go in and fight in Iraq. Many innocent Iraqi people have been killed. Apparently Bush originally went to Iraq because he believed they were harbouring "Weapons of Mass Destruction," even though there was no proof of that. Why didn't he invade North Korea instead, where there ARE weapons of mass destruction? I don't think it was very Christian of him to invade Iraq and kill innocent people. How would you feel if Saddam Hussein said, "Let's go to the US and kill everyone we believe may be a terrorist?" and ended up killing hundreds of innocent people-your friends and family included. Yikes!
Dear Canadian,
I can appreciate your anxiety, because the concerns you voice are among those we have heard from many Kerry supporters here in the US. Apparently the Canadian news media are just as capable of misrepresenting the situation as are our own media sources. =)
Regarding your statement that Osama Bin Laden isn’t from Iraq but Afghanistan, thus implying that we are wrongly mixed up in Iraq when our only target should have been Osama Bin Laden and Afghanistan, that is an argument that John Kerry tried repeatedly to make during the campaign. The fact is that Iraq was a viable threat and a source of potential terrorist activity. The Bush campaign never made the assertion that Saddam Hussein instigated the September 11th attacks (though he may well have harboured and supported terrorists and certainly has maintained an extremely hostile attitude toward American interests). The invasion of Iraq was provoked by Saddam Hussein’s refusal to cooperate with the requirements imposed on him. Whatever the demands were – submission to routine inspections, etc. – they were a reasonable and just precaution considering his actions and threats during the first Gulf War. By refusing to cooperate with the sanctions, he indicated hostile intent which sent a clear signal to America that danger was abroad. Saddam Hussein was a dangerous tyrant who represented a significant threat to American security, and it was therefore essential that he be taken out.
The basic difference between North Korea and Iraq is that Iraq actually gave us grounds to invade. Look at it this way. If you see a suspicious-looking character lurking in an alley, but making no threatening overtures toward you, do you have the right to demand his arrest? No, unless he actively threatens you, you cannot assume the worst, even if he has a gun. On the other hand, if there is a known criminal out on parole refusing to submit to his weekly drug test and weapons frisking, does the law have the right to re-arrest him? Of course – he has a proven record of dangerous activity, and his very refusal to cooperate is a threat to the public safety.
It was certainly not our goal to kill innocent people when we invaded Iraq. But the sad fact of war is that innocent people die. How many innocent people were dying every day under Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime? This is not to say that civilian casualties in the war are not regrettable, but the blame should justly be laid at the feet of the person responsible for provoking the conflict. Would you say that the US was un-Christian to go to Germany and kill innocent people during WWII? It was a lamentable consequence of war, but in the end, MORE innocent people were saved from destruction.
I’m going to defer to the history buffs on the peace v. war question, although it seems to me that ever since the Monroe Doctrine the US has a track record of being generally reluctant to involve herself in foreign wars. In the Great War, the US came under criticism from many of the allies for NOT entering the war sooner. In fact, Canada was quick to enter the fray upon England’s declaring war, and many American soldiers sympathetic to the Allied cause flocked to Canada to join up since America did not enter until later. In WWII, America tried to pursue the same non-interventionist policy – FDR even made it a campaign pledge not to involve American boys in any more foreign wars – until we were forced into it by the attack on Pearl Harbor.
~Rose
The media knows exactly what their doing. Before the election all they talked about what how Kerry would win, how America was ready for change, blah blah blah. When they were shocked to discover Thursday night/Wednesday morning that America did not listen they quickly jumped aboard the "nation divided" wagon. Why? Well, if you can't win an election with your propaganda then you brainwash society into thinking there's a problem with their decision.
They’ll never be happy unless they get what they want. Interestingly enough these talking heads are whining about the so-called religious-right pushing their propaganda in Washington now that they have the majority. GASP! As if that hasn’t been their plan all along? Sure... It is highly annoying to hear non-citizens, particularly those not living in the US, complaining about America's choice in leadership. I want to point out that while they think we’re brainwashed, they are the one’s basing all their views upon one source -- the media. To them I say, try actually living here and knowing first-hand what is going on, talking to people involved (i.e. soldiers, taxpayers, citizens who vote…). There’s my rant for the day. ~ S
Dear Canadian friend - thank you for your comments and your perspective.
Well, I wrote these comments before I noticed that Rose replied and did a pretty durn good job explaining my basic position. But, here goes anyway . . .
1. I prefer peace to war also but believe that terrorism is something that must be fought to ultimately have peace abroad and here at home. War is a terrible thing but I am glad that Bush is a strong leader who believes that some wars are necessary to accomplish a greater good (e.g., peace). If the "good people" never fought wars, the "bad people" would be the big bullies on the block and would dominate with their evil schemes. I'm glad that Canada, the U.S., the U.K. and many other nations were brave enough to stand up to Hitler, for instance. It's hard to lose so many of our sons in battle but we believed bringing down a sinister tyrant would be worth it. And it was.
2. Bin Laden is not from Iraq. You are right. But, while the pursuit of Bin Laden continues, the strategy was to bring down a terrorist-harboring despot in Iraq (Hussein) to establish order and democracy in the Middle East. This helps to further the goal of a) eliminating terrorism and b) bringing peace to that region.
3. You say that the "UN didn't back Bush to go in and fight Iraq." Bush did go to the UN to get the world's advice and seek their so called "approval." When the UN didn't agree to the war, Bush decided that France and China shouldn't dictate what is in America's best interests. I'm relieved that we have a president who will not entirely hand over America's sovereignty to a world council. If your Prime Minister in Canada believed a particular action was in the best interests of YOUR country, I would think that you would NOT want him to get approval from the U.S., Turkey, and Brazil before he took action. Don't get me wrong - the UN does indeed have its place - I just don't believe that we should be so harshly criticized for not bowing to their every dictate.
4. "Many innocent people have been killed" - unfortunately this is what happens in war. But, again, war is something that is sometimes necessary. Again, it's not "nice" or "fun." It's a terrible thing. But that doesn't make it not worthwhile.
5. When you're the leader of a country you have to make hard decisions based on the information that you have. I think liberals who tell us that Bush "lied" and misled the American people never liked him to begin with and would just like to see him brought down from office by whatever means necessary. I don't buy that extremism. I saw Colin Powell's presentation to the UN and I was certainly convinced that Iraq was a very likely threat. I think they did the best they could with the information they had. NOTE: Although no WMDs have technically surfaced, there surely is evidence of "mass destruction." Just look at all the mass graves that have been unearthed.
6. "I don't think it was Christian of him [Bush] to invade Iraq and kill innocent people." Bush is a person who takes his faith seriously. Many people criticize him for being so public about his faith. But I think it's admirable that his Christianity is so important to him and he's not afraid to talk about it in the public square. If you believe, as Bush does, that there is a "greater good" in ensuring freedom and democracy and SAVING LIVES by taking down a merciless, savage dictator, then you may have to count the costs and do what you think is right (even if it means that some innocents will be lost in the process).
7. You use the argument that Hussein could have said "let us go to the US and kill everyone we believe may be a terrorist." Please note - the U.S. is not a country that harbors terrorists. Iraq IS. And, guess what? Terrorists DID come to this country on 9-11 to kill U.S. citizens. Many innocent men, women and children were killed on that day.
I'm sure I won't persuade you to change your mind on a lot of your beliefs - but I hope you will look at both sides. Thanks again for posting your comments. I did indeed find it interesting to read about your perspective.
Amy
"Canadian" saying that Iraq is not Afghanistan is like the opponents of FDR in 1944 saying that Germany is not Japan.
Terrorism must be eliminated as a useful tactic on planet earth. Then, and only then, will we have won the war on terror.
Post a Comment