Sunday, August 07, 2005

Latest on DSM; Iraq

Comment #55 posted on Congressman John Conyers Jr.'s blog: jmatthan said on 8/6/05 @ 3:48am ET...

I must strongly disagree with your comment:

"where our great candidate Paul Hackett almost pulled out a win in one of the reddest districts in the nation. When (not if) we retake the House in '06, I believe we will see his stand in OH-2 as a bellweather."

1. In elections you either "win" or "lose". Looking at your Report on the Ohio Elections in 2004, the Republicans have mastered the technique of winning. The margin is close for a particular purpose - to lull an observer into accepting the result.

2. Paul Hackett was not a good "Democrat" candidate. He was Kerry-lite and a Bush stay-in-Iraq apologist.

3. Hackett participated in the "Christian" Fallujah massacre. Listen to the testimony of eye-witnesses was at the War Tribunal on Iraq for the other side of the story.

4. Just because he said Bush was a "chicken-hawk" and gained the mainstream media notoriety, did not make him a good candidate.

5. Hackett was sending more troops to Iraq and prolonging the suffering of the Iraqis and the massacre of more people who are fighting for their freedom from the illegal occupiers.

6. Hackett had no vision, except his own myopic view of the American military. Militarism, per se, creates such a myopic view. Hackett does not have your global vision to be called a true leader or a person with any political vision.


Post a Comment

<< Home