My Responses to Reporter

self ^ | 4/3/04 | Robert Teesdale

[Robert Teesdale]

I was contacted by a reporter yesterday following an interview I did Wednesday on 88.9FM in Fort Collins. He had a few questions, and wanted some comments from me. I thought I'd run my responses by FReepers and see what they think:

I'll post the article once it runs in the paper (Rocky Mountain Bullhorn).

1. Do you agree with the Bush Administration's (and neoconservatives') goal of using military force to democratize Iraq?

Yes, primarily for two factors. First, because of the horrific, tyrannical butchery continually perpetrated on the Iraqi people by the Hussein regime; and secondly, because that regime had repeatedly and continually represented a severe and ongoing threat to the peace of the region and the stability of the world. Rape rooms, mass killing pits, execution by industrial shredder and hundreds of thousands of "disappeared" are a foul and unacceptable practice by any State power upon the citizenry it oversees. The invasion of Iran, the invasion of Kuwait, the use of poison gas in ethnic cleansing and the funding of homicide bombers in Israel were equally grotesque and impermissible.

Therefore, the regime in Iraq warranted immediate, forcible removal. It is testimony to the generous spirit and compassionate character of the United States that our efforts are subsequently focused upon rebuilding, reeducating, and rebirthing a new, free and democratic nation in Iraq.

2. Do you agree with the way the Bush Administration has handled the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation?

Yes. The invasion and subjugation of Iraq was a stunningly successful military action. The enormous amount of territory seized in such a rapid time span, with miniscule casualties and total dominance of the battlefield has never before been matched in history. Accordingly, the handling of the invasion by the Administration and the Department of Defense was clearly and superbly professional.

With regards to the occupation - yes. The citizenry of Iraq is being provided opportunities and freedoms that have virtually never been available to them. Economic, religious, cultural and political arenas have all opened up in a manner they have never before experienced. Schools are being built, the infrastructure of the nation is being reconstructed - with an eye towards self-sufficiency, not the building of new palaces for a murderous despot - and the new Iraqi police and military are rapidly becoming more professional and capable. The future of Iraq is bright, and far outshines that of the people still groaning under the evil of Ba'ath cruelty in Syria and the insane mullahcracy in Iran.

Of course there is still terrorism, such as in Fallujah, and dissent. The terrorism will be dealt with in a resolute manner: through efficient and professional killing of those who would continue to spread terror and barbaric slaughter. Dissent, on the other hand, is not merely necessary but also a sign of thriving political and cultural growth. For decades dissent was punished in Iraq with monstrous brutality. The growing pains of political and religious self-responsibility are unequivocally to be expected.

3. What would you say to critics who claim the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq without U.N. support?

The United Nations is a corrupt, degenerate body which cannot be trusted with moral decisions of global nature. The resultant vacuum, in consequence, will be filled with whatever State power has the capacity and, more importantly, the willingness to make such decisions. I am thankful - both as an American, and as a human being - that the United States has filled that vacuum in a decisive and determined manner, and not the People's Republic of China.

[Robert Teesdale]

Any feedback?

[sauropod]

Good answers. No modification needed.

[Support Free Republic]

The home of the right
Liberty, prosperity
Your support makes us.

[dirtboy]

Very well done. The only thing I would have added was a mention of the Oil for Food scandal as it pertains to question 3 - and how it apparently corrupted both the UN and countries opposed to the war such as France and Russia and gave them criminal reasons to oppose action against Saddam - but we still should beg for their assistance.

[Robert Teesdale]

Yes, that would have been good to include. I didn't want, however, the eventual audience for the article to focus on an instance of wrongdoing by the UN - and possibly consider it an exception - as opposed to the blanket incompetence and bankrupt uselessness of it.

[jwalsh07]

Great answers, the only thing I would have done different was contrast Bush' handling of the mass killing by Ba'athist in Iraq to Clintons inaction vis a vis Rwanda.

But then again, I hold a grudge, I like to stick liberals noses in their faux compassion and I'm a nasty, right wing extremist partisan.

[Robert Teesdale]

I'd characterize it not as inaction on Rwanda, but deliberate neglect - as the documents coming out appear to indicate!

[Dr. Marten]

Right on!

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

Your answer on UN misses the latest great example of UN corruption, the grotesquely named "Oil for Food" program, which was used to line pockets of both UN officials and secretly reward Saddam's finger puppet supporters around the world. When the anti-Bush demonstrators yell "It's All About Oil!" they are right on, but aiming their barbs in the wrong direction - - - opposition to military action against Saddam was at least partly fueled by corruptly arranged oil contracts administered by the UN globocrats.

[RightWhale]

Good job of blowing down their strawmen and answering the begged questions. They must luv you today.

[LoudRepublicangirl]

I think you did a fine job. Just your mentioning the U.N. as a corrupt entity will be understood by the informed population. We all know what the U.N. has done. As far as I am concerned, the U.N. has blood on it's hands.

[Robert Teesdale]

Thanks... we'll see what parts he prints, and what parts he doesn't. I tried to be as colorful and precise as possible, to encourage more quoting. We'll see. The RMB is a rather good paper - independent, liberal staff, but seems to give very balanced coverage. Their treatment of the Tyranny Response Team was always quite fair.

[Robert Teesdale]

I agree. The UN's time is clearly past.

[mrsmith]

Good answers, ignorant questions.

" Do you agree with the Bush Administration's (and neoconservatives') goal of using military force to democratize Iraq? "

We're not "using military force to democratize Iraq". We're using military force to remove a threat.
'Democratization' is just an additional means we're using to remove the threat.

[Khurkris]

Well said. Good fortune to you.

[WVNan]

Thank you for mentioning the funding of suicide bombers in Iraq's misdeeds. I get so frustrated every time a lib maintains that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, and nobody points out their funding of it. Good answers BTW.

[taxcontrol]

It will be killed by the editors.

[Robert Teesdale]

Actually, I just got a very polite and generous response from the reporter, who says he will incorporate nearly all of it into the story. So that's at least one bit of good done!

It's an independent newspaper, and a rather good one.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Your answers show the reporter was talking to an informed person.

A couple of additions:

1. Irag was in violation of the cease fire agreement they signed in 1991 and despite 17 resolutions to the contrary, the UN refused to act. As Bush said, the UN must act or become irrelevant. They are now irrelevant.

2. The invasion was the most humane ever conducted, allowing many surrendering troops to go free and going to great lengths to avoid civilian casualities.

5. The effort being expended by the Ba'athists and outside terrorists to oust us testifies to the success of our program.

[taxcontrol]

You think so? I have my reservations. Granted it is better than the Denver comPost but still seems to have a very liberal bias to me.