MY E-MAIL EXCHANGE WITH HARRY REID

Recently I had e-mailed Harry Reid about his ugly partisan attacks against the president, particularly in his ungenerous characterizations of the president using the focus-grouped, Democratic boilerplate "Dangerously incompetent." Here is my original e-mail. Following that is Reid's reply and then my response to his e-mail (and yes I know it's just a boilerplate letter; I don't think he's actually replying himself):

I see you today again used the same ungenerous and mean-spirited description of the president describing him with the focus-grouped "dangerously incompetent" boilerplate label all Democrats are reading off the same script in using.

If Bush is "dangerously incompetent" then give me more incompetence. We have gone 4 1/2 yrs. without further attacks on US soil, 75% of Al Qaeda's leaders are dead or in prison, 2 terrorist regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan have been overthrown and no longer threaten us, 3 successful elections have been held in Iraq, Al Qaeda is on the run and being destroyed in Iraq and throughout the world and Bin Laden is in a rathole. We have 3.7% GNP growth in 2005 higher than the avg. of the "Clinton economic miracle" and the "best economy ever" of the 90s, full employment with low 4.8% unemployment, the best job market for college grads in years according to the employment consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, record home ownership, the Dow at 11,300. Education performance is up and crime is down.

So if this is "dangerous incompetence," GIVE US MORE! The president is getting the job done while all you Democrats can do is snipe at him from the sidelines by mouthing the same ugly and divisive labels like the wind up toys you all are.

I have noted your views about my comments of President Bush. I have always been known as someone who says exactly what I believe. Since this President took office, I have been a critic of his failed policies; my most recent criticism stems from the Administration's inability to protect America. Under this Administration's watch, Iraq has become a training ground and launching pad for international terrorism, North Korea has likely quadrupled its nuclear arsenal, bin Laden remains on the loose, terror attacks across the world are on the rise, and hurricane victims along the Gulf Coast remain displaced and in need of relief.

While I am sorry that you are displeased with my remark, I do not regret my criticism. As long as this President continues to fail to protect our nation, I will continue to challenge him.

The people of Nevada have elected me to fight for them, and that is exactly what I will continue to do. I will work with President Bush where I can, but when he ignores the issues that are important to America's families, I will continue to speak out on their behalf.

Thank you for your response to my e-mail. Here is my point by point reply to yours. Your remarks are in the quotes. My replies follow each one:

"Since this President took office, I have been a critic of his failed policies; my most recent criticism stems from the Administration's inability to protect America."

We have not had another attack on US soil since 9-11, so how has he "failed" to protect us? I know you will likely cite things such as port security claiming only 5% of containers are inspected here in US ports, but we know much of our container traffic is inspected ABROAD before it ever reaches US ports. Much else comes from secure places with no Al Qaeda presence such as China. So even that claim, and the 5% figure, is bogus and misleading. If you also were to mention the lack of security on the border, then I would agree with you. But you yourself have been an advocate for open borders and I see nothing coming out of the Democratic party that proposes tight regulation of the borders.

"Under this Administration's watch, Iraq has become a training ground and launching pad for international terrorism"

Iraq has also become a killing ground of Al Qaeda terrorists, a place where we were able to draw them out of their ratholes in Pakistan and elsewhere and into an open fight where they can be eliminated. An FBI report in 2004 indicated one of the reasons we've not been struck on our soil again is precisely because Al Qaeda is distracted in Iraq. Frankly that being the case makes our strategy of going into Iraq a brilliant one since it allows us to get at Al Qaeda thugs we'd have not been able to get at otherwise.

Yes they apparently attacked Jordan last year using terrorists from Iraq, but Jordan has long been an Al Qaeda target and had they not struck Jordan from Iraq, they'd have struck them from somewhere else. At least we have boots on the ground in Iraq to take them on. Where would you prefer we confront these animals Senator Reid, Mainstreet USA?

And we have none other than your friend President Bill Clinton to thank for that. Do you remember back in 1994 when President Clinton provided the North Koreans with $2 billion in compensatory aid, or as I call it "protection money," to get North Korea to end their nuclear program? Well guess what, the North Koreans did not end their nuclear program. Indeed, they accelerated it and according to a CIA report had their first nuclear warhead by 1999.

Now what do you propose President Bush do to eliminate that threat? He has relied on diplomacy, something you and your party said he should have done in Iraq, to deal with the North Korean threat. Are you now going to hypocritically flip flop from that position and say President Bush needs to use force there? Are you prepared for the consequences of a military fight with the 1 million man North Korean army and a wider war in Asia, one likely to go nuclear with a North Korean first strike? Are you prepared to see Asia, and thus America's economy, thrown into tumult?

If you are not prepared to accept 2000 American dead in Iraq over 3 years, are you REALLY prepared to accept the 2000 dead Americans in just a few days (possibly 10s of thousands of dead Americans if the war goes nuclear) of combat which will come from a North Korean invasion of South Korea resulting from a strike on their nuclear targets? I doubt it. So therefore we have yet another example of Democrats being all too willing to attack from the sidelines while proposing no alternative vision or agenda. The time to have taken on North Korea militarily was in the 90s before they had a nuclear deterrant. But instead Bill Clinton fed them billions of my taxpayer dollars as protection money.

" bin Laden remains on the loose, terror attacks across the world are on the rise"

If Bin Laden remains on the loose it is not for a lack of trying to get him, unlike with the prior administration. I refer you to two recent books, "Why America Slept" by Gerald Posner, a self-professed liberal and former Clinton supporter (up until the time he researched this book) and "Losing Bin Laden" by Richard Minitier. Both books show that Clinton let Bin Laden get away up to 12 times, including when the Sudan offered to land the Sudanese air force C-130 in Qatar carrying Bin Laden and 150 of Al Qaeda's top leaders from the Sudan to Afghanistan in 1996 so we could storm the plane and arrest them and Clinton turned them down flat.

As for terror attacks increasing across the world, do you include non-Al Qaeda attacks in with that number such as Marxist groups in Columbia or separatist guerrillas say in Sri Lanka or elsewhere? IF so, then your remark is meaningless as to shedding light on America's effectiveness in combatting Al Qaeda. On the other hand, Al Qaeda attacks on US targets, a more meaningful measure of our effectiveness against Al Qaeda, are actually down. And do you really think that had Al Gore or John Kerry been elected president that the situation would be any different? If anything, it would have been a lot worse.

"hurricane victims along the Gulf Coast remain displaced and in need of relief."

Senator, did you REALLY think that the effects of America's worst disaster ever would be mitigated entirely in 9 months time? Did you REALLY think it was possible to re-build 10s of thousands of destroyed and damaged homes in under a year? This is just grasping at straws Senator, and more of the same kind of pathological Bush bashing that I spoke of in my original e-mail to you.

I am truly disappointed that in your reply to me about the tone of your discourse regarding the president that you continued to engage in ugly partisan attacks against him. Can you not disagree without being disagreeable? Do you ever stop to think that wartime is the worst time to be dividing the country as you are and to be weakening the president with vicious partisan assaults?

This seems to have become a sickness with you Democrats, something you're unable to control even as you all hypocritically attack the president for being "divisive" and "partisan." If only Bush were more of those things and willing to hit back at you people in the same way I'm doing in answering your partisan polemics about the president.

Instead, I see the president as just rising above it and calmly going about the hard work of leading the country during a brutal period in world history. May I make the bold suggestion that your party start to show yourselves to be the party of adult governance by working with the president to solve the big problems our country faces rather than what you appear to most normal people to be, the party of cheap partisan shots and extremist political rhetoric?

Under this Administration's watch, Iraq has become a training ground and launching pad for international terrorism

What the Hell Harry?

You have that backwards old man.
Under this Administration's watch, Iraq is no longer a training ground and launching pad for international terrorism. It was. But now it is not.
Get it?

Or Filthy Harry doesn't have a form letter set up for that. Notice he focused on attacking Bush on national security and said not a thing about the economy? Telling, isn't it? I think Democrats are making a big mistake making security their big issue going into the election. They're never going to steal this issue from the GOP even despite what rigged polls showed during the UAE port deal. They would be wise to focus on domestic issues, not that they even have much there to grasp onto. But at least people won't be laughing them out of the room on domestic issues as they will be when they claim to be stronger on defense than Bush and the GOP.

22 posted on 04/05/2006 1:36:28 PM PDT by MikeA (Not voting in November because you're pouting is a vote for Democratic Congressional control)

Trying to have a sane converation with the likes of Dinghy Harry is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. You might be able to do it, but not without losing your own sanity in the process.

23 posted on 04/05/2006 1:37:45 PM PDT by WestVirginiaRebel (Common sense will do to liberalism what the atomic bomb did to Nagasaki-Rush Limbaugh)

Good point! I forgot to mention that in my letter to him, that all these files emerging from Saddam's own intel. files show he was working with Al Qaeda and training jihadi terrorists on his soil.

24 posted on 04/05/2006 1:38:18 PM PDT by MikeA (Not voting in November because you're pouting is a vote for Democratic Congressional control)

Actually, I'd volunteer because everyone he has "advising" him are either Beltway products of his, or another Republican Administration (but not a real conservative as we grow them in KS), or a "Dick Morris" wannabe.

27 posted on 04/05/2006 2:24:54 PM PDT by MikeA (Not voting in November because you're pouting is a vote for Democratic Congressional control)

29 posted on 04/05/2006 8:40:34 PM PDT by MikeA (Not voting in November because you're pouting is a vote for Democratic Congressional control)

Hey Harry:

Freedom in Afghanistan, say goodbye Taliban
Bush was right
Bush was right....

http://www.therightbrothers.com/index2.php

"Since this President took office, I have been a critic of his failed policies"

Yepper, even B4 U new wat they wer Mr.Reed!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.