My loving readers, warring without win

True confession: posting the “win without war” petition link has gotten me a ton of traffic over the next two days; mostly because I’m the number 2 hit for that search on Google and the number one hit exceeded his ISP’s traffic quota. So far there has been a minimal amount of feedback on the piece, though: no comments, two emails, one for and one against.

The one that didn’t like what I was doing—well, I hesitate to say this reader opposed the petition because it’s not apparent that the reader read it.

It is amazing to me how this was not a petition when Clinton went on his “little” bombing runs.  It would do you and the people that think like you to realize that President Bush doesn’t want to go to war.  We are dealing with a man that is providing weapons and funding to people that don’t want to hug us.  They want us dead.  Have faith in this President and believe he has evidence to support his position.  He will release prior to any war action.

I have a brother, brother-in-law, and many friends that are active military and would definitely be called up.  I would rather not go to war.  However, they all volunteered are proud and willing to do what it takes to support their country.  The victims and families of the WTC didn’t have that choice.  Thank goodness our fore-fathers had a stronger backbone then you and the people like you.  Thank goodness there was no Hollywood when this great country you live in and benefit from was founded!

Hmm. Last time I checked there wasn’t a reference to Hollywood in either the petition or in anything I wrote. Last time I checked, I didn’t suggest anything more radical than that President Bush let due process take its course. If I, and the signers of this petition, display a little cynicism about whether Bush has sufficient evidence to go to war and are reluctant to trust him without seeing it, I would argue it’s only a natural consequence of this administration’s reluctance to trust the American public with other information about its workings, such as the records of meetings with energy industry executives while creating the Bush energy plan. Or why Cheney is blasting big holes in the grounds of the Naval Observatory, in a residential and ambassadorial neighborhood.

Finally, my reader claims higher privilege by invoking friends and relatives on active duty. I have friends on active duty too, and I don’t presume to speak for them. But you might want to have a gander at the words of Lawrence Kida (son of a twice wounded WWII Marine) in the Seattle Times editorial page, who points out: “Can someone please explain to me why I am being told there is distinct proof of Iraqi involvement in ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ yet when the State Department is queried as to specifics, the reply is that the burden of proof rests on the government of Iraq?”