My Response

This post was written by guest author, Shannon.

Okay, first of all, I wrote that it was not meant to be a personal attack because it was intended to focus on the content of your article, and not of you as a person. So, in that respect, perhaps you are correct in that my last comment was personal. However, let’s just talk about your absurd, ridiculous allegations…

First of all, you stated that I accused you of “personally attack[ing] the president as a person,” which I did not. I said you were mudslinging, which is not at all the same thing. The first would be attacking him, and the second, to quote from Merriam-Webster.com “the use offensive epithets and invective especially against a political opponent.” This does not necessarily mean against the person, but rather against his policies and so forth. Either way, before you even begin your article, you’ve already done both. To quote from you, “Then again, if you’re my next subject, you can’t spell a lot of things. My teacher asked us to write about what pisses us off lately, and that, just like my subject, was a no-brainer: GEORGE W BUSH, commander-in-thief.” If that is not a personal attack against the president as a person, then I would like to know what is.

My first problem with your article was your statement that “the average person’s knowledge of world affairs began with the largely ignorant response to September 11th, which was then easily manipulated through patriotic public statements from our jingoistic president into a war in Iraq….” That is a huge, horrible accusation. Not only did you attack citizen’s knowledge of politics and current events, but then you continue to attack them regarding their ability to think for themselves by implying that they are so stupid they can be easily persuaded. Now, I realize that there is a large portion of U.S. citizens that do not pay attention to current events, but, and perhaps I am thinking optimistically here, I believe that the average person can properly analyze information and decide their own opinion on the issue. Here’s a funny thought…maybe they actually supported the president into a war in Iraq?!

Next, you alluded to Clinton’s presidency in comparison to Bush’s, as though sexual relations in the oval office were of equal value to trying to defend the nation and the world from weapons of mass destruction. True, none have been found, but that doesn’t mean that there weren’t, or that the threat wasn’t there. According to you, we apparently should have just sat around until we found out, after they starting using them, that there actually were weapons there. Furthermore, Bush’s action resulted in the capturing of dictator Sadam Hussein. I don’t think that anything of equal comparison resulted from Clinton’s inappropriate actions.

In addition, you accused Bush’s cutting of research into renewable energy and stated that his reason for doing so “all to please his rich big business constituents, as he continues to act as a lapdog for his campaign contributors, including more oil company donations than any other president in history.” I could go off into a tirade about Clinton’s campaign donations, since you think he is relevant in discussing this upcoming election, but I won’t. I will, however, suggest that his decision had more to do with his party’s political ideas rather than the reason you state. As Republicans traditionally prefer a smaller national government, they prefer to limit their spending to other things, which justifies his money spent on the military. Even so, you did not back up your comment, so I don’t know what you are referring to, and therefore can not properly defend it. However, according to the GOP’s website, “One part of the President’s Six Point Plan for the Economy is to pass a comprehensive national energy plan. The President looks forward to working with Congress to pass an energy plan that will reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy and modernize our antiquated electricity delivery system… Businesses depend on affordable and reliable energy supplies. Energy shortages, price spikes, and blackouts disrupt the economy and discourage businesses from planning with confidence and adding new workers. President Bush has proposed a comprehensive national energy plan to upgrade the Nation’s electrical grid, promote energy efficiency, increase domestic energy production, and provide enhanced conservation efforts, all while protecting the environment. It’s time for Congress to finish its work and pass legislation based on the President’s energy plan.” Interesting, that sounds like the opposite of what you said.

Next, let’s discuss your little conversation that is supposedly representative of the “typical opinion.” You assert that the major opinion is that people thing we were attacked because Bin Laden and his country hate “freedom.” Are you kidding me? I’m not sure where you got that from that idea from. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know anyone who goes around believing every thing that the president says, or uses phrases like “just like the president says.” However, I think that it is more correct to say that a typical opinion is that the “they” you referred to have a hatred for the American ways and lifestyles, and not “freedom”. Of course, you say that that is “the single most destructive lie perpetuated by the Bush administration.” Furthermore, you also said that “often now days, even considering the enemy’s perspective means you’re a terrorist sympathizer who’s belittling the deaths of the WTC occupants.” I don’t think that people who are considering the enemy’s perspective are terrorists sympathizers, and I also don’t know anyone who does think that. I believe that what America stands for, and what we do in our relations with other countries, go hand in hand, and can’t really be separated. Past presidents of both parties have been involved in other’s countries for most of our national history, and I think most people believe that our past actions were related to 9-11. However, because America has been involved in other countries’ affairs long before the Bush administration, I don’t think the reasons they attacked us have any relevance to this election. Still, you claim that once we “demand leadership change and transparent government that terrorists acts will cease.” Dream on. And I thought I was the optimist.

Next, you said, “I guess it’s ok if Bush attempts to get every other country in the U.N. to back him, then only a couple do but goes ahead anyway, but Kerry, who actually has combat experience (however dubious, its more than Bush can say), doesn’t have the right to send troops… Talk about flip flopping.” I never said anything about either, so it’s interesting that you accused me of flip flopping. Yes, I do think that it’s okay that Bush went ahead into the way without UN support, but I also think that Kerry has the right to send troops as well. My comment was based on the idea that electing Kerry will equal automatic involvement of allies, which is ridiculous, because as I said, Bush attempted that and our allies did not want to be involved. So, Kerry can, by all means, send troops, and I never said otherwise. Also, I can’t find anywhere in my response where I supported the opposite of “leav[ing] the rest of the world alone.”

In addition, you also claimed that I was supportive of the war in Iraq, which I also cannot find any mention of in my comment. That is not to say that I do not support it, in some ways, but I never said that. Also, who do you think you are with your comment “it’s easy to support a war on foreign soil when you’re a girl in college with the absolute least chance of being drafted, should Bush reintroduce the draft next term. But do you believe in this war enough to go fight for it… ‘Cause if not, you shouldn’t support it.” According to you, I can’t support a war just because I’m not capable of fighting in it. First of all, no one would want me to be fighting in the war, because I’m sure I would be more of a burden than a help. But to say that you have to be eligible to do the actual fighting in a war in order to support it is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard. There’s an example of your “blind bias and hatred” right there.

And finally, you said that “there are intelligent responses to provocative material, and then there is Shannon’s response.” If you are going to say that, at least get it right. There was only one response besides mine, so there was “an intelligent response” not “responses.”