Another Massachusetts Yankee Speaks

I received an email from a reader who apparently takes issue with my blogger profile where I talk briefly about my journey from liberal to conservative. I'm going to respond to it in pieces, but the whole email will be quoted.

Refresh my memory... What was the 'cold water in the face' that caused you to 'go conservative', after 9/11? Do you find it interesting that NY, NJ and DE (ALL of the place that were attacked on 9/11) - voted overwhelmingly AGAINST Bush, following 9/11? The places that supported Bush the most, were the farthest removed from the disaster.

In 2000 - in NYC, Bush got 400,922 votes (18% of the vote), Gore got 1,662,911 (73% of the vote). There were 2,283,261 total votes. Appropriately lopsided for the bluest city in America.

However...In 2004 - in Manhattan, Bush got 587,534 votes in Manhattan (24% of the vote), Kerry got 1,828,015 (74% of the vote). There were 2,459,652 total votes. Appropriately lopsided for the bluest city in America.

But wait! My goodness, in the most LIBERAL city in America, Bush increased his vote percentage by 6% post Nine/Eleven. The Democrats only held even. Interesting, considering how "loved" Bushitler is in NYC - that's a respectable increase. I guess some people in New York also got a wake-up call on September 11.

Was it the presidential daily briefing that Condi ignored (Bin Laden determined to strike inside the US). Was it the failure to listen to the outgoing Clinton people who warned the incoming Bush people that al Quaeda was the #1 threat? Do you know who created al Quaeda (hint: HW are the middle initial's). Or was it the utter lack of military experience through out the (W) Bush Admin (with the exception of the peace-time flying of Rumsfeld) They all got deferments from Vietnam and Korea...). Google on 'SUNSHINE PATRIOTS' & 'VILLAGE VOICE' for the specific's.

I'm sorry, are you really trying to present the Clinton administration as militarily astute? Without excusing the current administration for it's fuck-ups by way of intelligence gathering (even though they inherited a shambles from the Clinton administration), Bill Clinton is the most strategically incompetent President since...well Jimmy Carter. Let's just look at a few examples...

Osama bin Laden...left to run free...as free as the bombs blow...

Osama bin Laden and his terrorist-related activities were well known to the United States by 1995. Clinton had an opportunity to capture him in the fall of 1998, but was unavailable. When he was finally reached, further consultation was needed with various secretaries. The two-hour window in which bin Laden could have been caught was lost. Says Patterson, "This lost bin Laden hit typified the Clinton administration's ambivalent, indecisive way of dealing with terrorism. Ideologically, the Clinton administration was committed to the idea that most terrorists were misunderstood, had legitimate grievances, and could be appeased, which is why such military action as the administration authorized was so halfhearted, and ineffective, and designed more for 'show' than for honestly eliminating a threat."

Not exactly the best move was it? How about Somalia which gave bin Laden his "paper tiger" impression of the United States:

THERE has been much to criticise in the Bush administration's foreign policies. Yet many critics have missed the mark.

Some have rushed to condemn Bush as the "most incompetent president in living memory". They ought to refresh their memories. The publication of Bill Clinton's memoir, My Life, provides an occasion for doing so. [snip]

Consider the Somalia fiasco. In December 1992 president Bush Sr launched a UN-backed humanitarian rescue of Somalia from famine. Clinton inherited this mission. When faced with anarchy, and sabotage of the mission by warlords who were killing UN peacekeepers, Clinton decided to hunt down the principal culprit, Mohammad Aidid. Yet Clinton committed insufficient armed forces to the operation. When Aidid fought back, killing 18 Americans and dozens of other UN soldiers, Clinton decided to cut and run - reaping dreadful consequences.

We now know that Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'ida had trained and fought with Aidid's forces. Bin Laden, recalling the US retreat from Vietnam and the Reagan administration's retreat from Beirut in 1983 after a truck bombing killed 243 marines, was convinced by Somali events that he US retreated under fire.

And then there's the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, which provoked no response. The USS Cole bombings, and the embassy bombings in Africa. All of these incidents and the pussified responses to them encouraged al Qaeda to move forward with the Nine/Eleven attacks. The list goes on from there, the fiasco in Cambodia, the slow response in the Balkans, the blind eye turned to the genocide in Rwanda. So don't try to hold Bill Clinton up as a shining example of foreign policy brilliance, because you'll get shot down quick.

I know, the Democrat's are weak on terror - that might explain why every single person involved in the first 9/11 attack (just weeks after Clinton took office, i.e., planned on Bush I's watch) was caught - and is rotting in prison.

Bush has done NOTHING - including making the port's secure.

I'm glad that you can admit the Democrats are week on terror. Now, realizing that no defense is perfect, and no President is perfect, and a tragedy could happen tomorrow, I think the best rebuttle to this bit of doo-doo is that there hasn't been an attack since Nine/Eleven.

Does it bother you that Cheney's lesbo daughter ran his reelection campaign, the centerpiece of which was scaring people with the phoney gay marriage 'scare'?

No. Gay marriage was a legitimate issue for the campaign. Especially considering the way the gay rights establishment was trying to force it on a public that wasn't ready by court fiat. Had the GLBTQQTLMNOPXYZ crowd been wise, and followed Vermont's example of domestic partnerships, there may not have been such a virulent backlash. Remember, slow and steady wins the race.

As for Mary Cheney running her father's campaign - he won! She did a damn good job. Oh, and I love the way a tolerant, accepting liberal called Mary "Cheney's lesbo daughter" - that's really...tolerant and accepting of you. You accept and tolerate her only if she tows your philosophical line; then she'd be a loud, proud Lesbian! But since she thinks for herself, she's just a "lesbo." Nice one, faggot.

My best friend is from Kansas - and I cannot for the life of me - understand why people continue to vote against their own self-interest's (in fact, there's a book entitled 'What's the matter with Kansas', which examines this weird phenomenon.

I refuse to visit Tennessee, Kansas or Kentucky - and will not spenda penny in those places. I've been to Virginia Highlands - great place, dude!

You kinda rambled on this one dude, so I'm not sure where you were going, but please add Georgia to that "I refuse to visit" list. Oh! One more thing that was bugging the shit out of me in your email. An apostrophe ( ' ) is used to denote the possesive case, NOT a plural - unless it's (that means "it is") a plural of numbers, letters, or abbreviations.