Editorial Response to Cindy Sheehan - Part I

The following editorial has been drafted in response to the editorial written by Cindy Sheehan which appeared in the August 14th Sunday edition of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Crossroads section.

Sheehan listed four key reasons why she camped outside President George W. Bush’s Crawford, Texas ranch and demanded that he meet with her to discuss the war in Iraq and question what her son has died for. Her first argument is that “the 9/11 Commission’s report concluded there was no link between Iraq and the September 11th, 2001, attacks”, thus making the claims by the Bush Administration that the war in Iraq was an extension of the war on terror a complete fabrication.

True, the 9/11 Commission did determine that there was no conclusive evidence to connect Saddam Hussein and the country of Iraq with the Islamic terrorist organization al Qaeda … on September 11th! The purpose of the commission was to investigate the events of U.S. foreign policy in the years leading up to September 11th, point out the missed opportunities to catch Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers, and determine the best course of action in order to prevent such a catastrophe from taking place on our shores again. The left, however, without hesitation twisted the intention of the commission to suit their agenda, creating what was essentially a tool for them in which they could publicly reciprocate their belief that the war in Iraq was both unnecessary (all wars are unnecessary but are must often be conducted in order to correct injustices in the world when diplomacy fails) and unjustified, if not definitively then suggestively.

And this is exactly what they have done since the commission’s final report was released over a year ago. They have manipulated the findings of the bipartisan panel to suit the desired political ends of the left-wing extremists who have hijacked the Democratic Party and turned it into the speeding train wreck is has become today.

You would have to be a complete and utter imbecile or else Michael Moore in thinking (though to be honest those generally go hand-in-hand, so perhaps I am repeating myself unnecessarily) not to see a cultivating partnership between the nation of Iraq and al Qaeda. What do they both have in common that would make them compatible with each other? An intense hatred of America and what it stands for, the one thing that could help put aside the differences of Bin Laden and Hussein and forge an alliance together. Even Bush-bashing author and former intelligence ‘czar’ to the Clinton Administration Richard Clarke was quoted by the 9/11 Commission as having said that if Osama Bin Laden were to escape into Iraq it would be nearly impossible to find him. Why would this be unless there existed a collaboration between the two? Bin Laden and Hussein may differ remarkably in the direction in which they hope to take the Middle-East but desperate times call for desperate measure and with increasing UN sanctions and pressure from the U.S. to relinquish his WMD programs, Hussein was willing to take a chance. As the old saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

And does it not strike anyone else as odd that it was Iraq, in the opinion of the left, remained the sole secular state in the Middle East region, this in spite of Hussein’s erratic behavior and fervent hatred of the United States of America, when nearly every one of its neighboring countries (Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia) was practically in bed with Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda? What do you take us for?

Cindy Sheehan should spend more time doing her research and penning her own editorials rather then merely echoing the insensible and asinine ravings of Michael Moore, Al Franken, and the rest of the radical left, the ones truly damaging the reputation of this country.