Recently,I got into a massive political debate with a republican Neighbor. These people are hardcore Republicans--some of the 19% that still support Mr. 19% in the White House. They do not regret their vote for Chimpy McFlightsuit, and believe that he has made the country better. They don't even think that the current Monarch has ever lied to the country. I know I can never really change their mind about who they support, and I cannot sway them from McCain.
However, I do have the ability to sway my father, who was listening to our debate, and wanted to hear my email response with my cited facts and information.
He is a very Independent-minded voter, like most of us here in New Hampshire, and had tended to lean Republican recently (I blame Fox News). However, he does regret Bush and everything to do with him. Maybe I can get him on our side, which is important in a swing state such as mine, New Hampshire.
I started the email describing the first Senate Prewar Intelligence Report, because my neighbor had said that it was led by the democrats and had cleared Bush entirely.
The letter is below the fold.
Dear C. M. G. C., etc,
It is inaccurate at best to describe the Senate Intelligence Report as the "democrats clearing Bush" the report was headed up by>Pat Roberts, a Republican Senator. Additionally, Republicans Orrin Hatch, Mike DeWine, Christopher S. Bond, (Indited) Trent Lott, Olympia J. Snowe, Chuck Hagel, Saxby Chambliss and John D. Warner. There were also seven democrats on the panel: Levin, Feinstein, Wyden, Durbin, Edwards, Bayh, Mikulski. I am tempted to exclude Levin, because of his tendency to vote with the GOP Caucus (thus the Levin amendment, etc.), but I will call him a 'Blue Dog democrat,' an incredibly conservative Democrat, essentially an Independent.
This makes nine Republicans and seven Democrats, not quite the "democratic caucus clearing Bush." Despite this, the report hardly "cleared Bush" in face, the report stated that "the White House had disregarded warnings from intelligence agencies that a war in Iraq would intensify anti-American hostility in the Muslim world." (source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/... ) Even Bush admits to a "miscalculation" (source: http://www.nytimes.com/... )
Bush's claims of Iraq's weapons had been "widely discredited for wildly overestimating the country's capabilities." in 2004, four years ago.
Bush and Cheney had claimed that Iraq had "nuclear capabilities" (source, meet the press transcript: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/... ), although many people did not doubt the biological and chemical weapon capabilities, many experts doubted the nuclear capabilities, expert Hans Blix said to Rice: "I said to Condoleezza Rice that we were not impressed by the intelligence,' Blix recalled in an interview with NPR. 'I remember she said, 'Intelligence is never 100 percent. But it is not the intelligence that is indicted. It is the Iraqis who are.'"
Bush sourced his information to a supposed Al Qaeda operative,but ignored the fact that he had been discredited 8 months earlier (source: NPR http://www.npr.org/... )
Do you still think we're going to find those weapons? They honestly don't exist as the Republican-led report concluded. Bush said that Democrats had looked at the information and agreed with him, but no Democrats agree with this. In fact, Sen. Bob Graham notes that Congress has no access to the President's Daily Brief, another thing that is in contention.
The administration consistently refuses to release the briefing for September 21st, 2001, ten days after 9/11. Generals have reported that Saddam Hussein did not ally withal Qaeda, despite Bush's claims. In fact, "Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime." (source: National Journal http://www.nationaljournal.com/... )
It wasn't just Democrats asking Bush (and continuing to ask Bush) for these reports, no, it included powerful Republicans as well. There are several reasons many Republicans are trying to shy away from Bush in their re-election strategies, this is just one of them.
In fact: "'What the President was told on September 21,' said one former high-level official, 'was consistent with everything he has been told since-that the evidence was just not there'" the evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda was not there, one of Bush's many lies. I can provide a list of plenty of more, sourced and cited, to his many other lies if you wish.
You asked me some of the reasons that I supported Barack Obama for President. I have many reasons,despite the impression that I got that you were hinting that I was just another baseless supporter. There are three main issues. Again, Obama is a politician, and while I support some of his positions, I hardly support them all. For instance, I disagree with him on Israel, I strongly believe in a two-state solution with a neutral Jesrulaem.
My biggest issue in politics is Global Warming, something I have researched and documented throughly, whether you believe it is a concern or not. I can send you my well-cited, sourced, delivered twenty five page essay that I wrote last year, if you want more information. Also, the wikipedia articles on Global Warming, Global Dimming and their effects are incredibly well-described and supported by many scientists.
There was a list circulating of 1,000 scientists that believed that Global Warming was bunk. This list was decidedly outnumbered by 100,000 other scientists and researchers from the United States and across the world, especially in the UN's Massive report, that I can send to you in a PDF file if you want more information.
The second reason is that I admire Obama's ability to compromise with Republicans and Democrats to get things done. A wonderful example of this is Obama working with Chuck Hagel, a republican, to create "google for the government" a place where you can search where the money from your taxes goes locally and nationally. Here: http://www.usaspending.gov/
Obama has noted that he likes to "disagree without being disagreeable," and this helps him to come to compromises, something he was noted for in the Illinois Senate, to the rave reviews of Republicans and Democrats there.
The third reason that I support Obama is because of his community Organizing skills. His fifty state voting drive has brought in all sorts of new voters, in huge numbers. His campaign organization overcame the most powerful Democratic machine and institution in the country, Hillary Clinton. These skills promise to set back the Republican neo-conservative agenda back decades, and perhaps even fatally wound it.
Why am I a progressive you ask?
Because it's good to be on the winning side of history.
Conservatives were against the Reformation, the Industrial Revolution, the American Revolution, women's suffrage, civil rights, and so many other winning causes throughout history. It's the cycle of the generations, change and reaction.
Thank you for reading, and I am free to answer any questions you may have.
Best, etc