A rebuttal to a chain email.

John Glenn (DEMOCRAT) said this.. It should make us all think a little:

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn countryof Iraq.

Five years after we invaded Iraq, it is now safer than it was during the height of the fighting. The point of the surge was to decrease violence in order to allow a political agreement to form. The first succeeded, time will tell whether or not it will be a long term success. As for the number of deaths, I don't know if you're saying that US military deaths are low or if Detroit is a horrible place to live, but I think we should compare total Iraqi deaths due to violence now versus before we invaded. The figures are hard to come by, but here are some sources. Reuters. Wikipedia.

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war,tell them the following:

FDR (DEMOCRAT) led us into World War II.

Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ... an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman (DEMOCRAT) finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost .. an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy (DEMOCRAT) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.

Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson (DEMOCRAT) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. & yet From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ... an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton (DEMOCRAT) went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

Obviously Vietnam was an unjust war, but I don't see how that is relevant to Iraq. I think the point in debate is whether or not invading Iraq was justified. By virtue of the fact that there were still arms inspectors in the country at the time of the invasion and that there is and was a sizable population of doubters, all the conditions for a justified war were not met. That's it.

In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. And the Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.

Yes, there are more dead terrorists now than there were on September 10, 2001. The question is, are we safer? If more people are turning to radical extremism now than before 9/11, than I fear for our long-term safety. Due to the fact that popularity for America is lower now than in September, 2001, I think Bush could have done better. He squandered worldwide goodwill in a hasty, irresponsible war.

But Wait, There's more.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno (DEMOCRAT) to take the Branch Davidian compound That was a 51-day operation...

We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton (DEMOCRAT) to find the Rose law firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida !!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

These points are true, but irrelevant. You're trying to suggest that the war has not been going on too long. Just say that. Expecting a certain outcome in a certain amount of time is fine, but be clear. I think the complaint with the length of the war is that it is taking longer than Bush said it would, due to his selective acceptance of intelligence reports before the war.

But Wait ....... There's more!

JOHN GLENN (on the Senate floor - January 26, 2004)

Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man 's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living.

This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military

Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
'How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?'

Senator Glenn (D-Ohio): 'I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank.'

'I ask you to go with me, as I went the other day ... to a veteran's hospital and look those men ... with their mangled bodies ... in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job

You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee ... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DAD'S didn't hold a job.

You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags.

You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you have the gall to tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

What about Metzenbaum?'

For those who don't remember During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA .

Now he's a Senator!

What is the point? I am grateful that there are people willing to join the military. I hope that their leaders become wiser.

To top it off have you ever noticed that Obama is so rude and disrespectful that he can't call President Bush, President Bush? He always calls him George Bush, he is his boss and he should respect him even if he doesn't like him, he is teaching the people and youth of this nation to be rude and disrespectful and people want someone like this in office?? What do you think he's going to do if he does get into office?? People you need to wake up!! And i find it a horrible fact that mrs. obama said that for the first time in her life she is proud to be an american ! our possible next first lady of our blessed united states said this.,If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.

W is not my boss. He is not Obama's boss. He is not my commander in chief. He is the head of the Executive branch of the government of the United States and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the U.S. He was elected by the electoral college and only a vote by two-thirds of the Senate can remove him before his term. Therefore it is more correct to say that Obama is his boss. He has admitted to committing felonies. He has been accused of gross incompetence in domestic and foreign affairs. He does not deserve my respect. He should beg forgiveness for sullying the office of the President more than Clinton did.


It might not be a bad idea to keep this circulating. I AM!!!

Please... don't.