Letters to the Editor. Iowa 2004 Presidential Watch: Republican conservative news on the Democrat caucus, primary candidates national campaigns.

IPW welcomes contributions to our online OP-ED Page. All submissions may be edited for length, accuracy and clarity. For verification purposes, letters and guest opinions to IPW must include your complete name, address and daytime telephone number; however only name and city/state will appear online. To submit by email, click here. Those wishing to submit by snail mail: Iowa Presidential Watch, P.O. Box 171, Webster City, IA 50595. -

Dec. 20, 2003

MARINES & FRIENDS OF MARINES . . ATTENTION PLEASE

Mystic River, the new movie being released this Wednesday is starring Sean Penn and Tim Robbins who have been known to spew hate speech against our current President, assaulting his character for doing what he is attempting to do with the war on terror, to protect Americans from further attack. Which has been very successful so far. These 2 liberal actors have sided with Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden and against our own country, as demonstrated by Penn's going to Iraq prior to the war in protest of our pending attack to remove the terrorist regime of Saddam Hussein, saying that we have no right to attack innocent people and that it was the Bush administration that is starting this war. Let us not forget 9/11/2001. I figure I have no way to let the liberals in Hollywood know that they are just actors....and not representative of mainstream America, by myself. But if each one of us route this note to all of your friends who support our troops and the administration, and make sure that they do not go to this movie. Encourage all you know......not to go to it. By doing this.....these actors won't be able to get a job. Look what it did for Alec Baldwin's career! He's a washed up actor that watches his mouth these days. We have 2 days until this movie starts. Let the boycott begin. Route this to every loyal patriotic person you know and stay away from this movie with these anti-American activists. These are 2 very outspoken hate ministers and we can make a difference. IT'S WHAT WE "DO" THAT COUNTS, NOT WHAT WE INTEND TO DO!

SEMPER FI

DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

We can control our destiny by setting a firm schedule
for drawing down our troops next year.

Twenty-six months after 9/11 and seven months after the conclusion of major combat operations in Iraq, America is in a strategic pickle and Americans are in a judgmental quandary.

There are no certitudes when it comes to Iraq.

Anyone who was not conflicted on the original decision to intervene or who does not see a downside to all courses of action today is not approaching the problem with an open mind.

In an era of anger, of divisions in the world based on economics, on color of skin, on ethnicity, on religious belief, on happenstance of family and place of birth, virtually any extremist with a cause has the possibility of being heard and felt around the globe in ways that never existed before.

As the world's only superpower, the United States has no choice but to display firmness of purpose and resolve in response to inhumane breaches of order. Yet, firmness and resolve must be matched by compassionate understanding of the reasons people of the world lash out.

The problem is determining when and how to respond with firmness, when and how to express compassion. As in all human conduct, the challenge is wisdom.

Reviewing the causes of World War I, historians concluded there was not enough flexibility in the European alliance system and this rigidity allowed a rather minor event, the assassination of an Austrian archduke, to precipitate a cataclysmic war. With this example in mind, political leaders in the 1930s erred on the side of irresolution, which led them to Munich and the partition of Czechoslovakia. Too much inflexibility caused one war; too little spine led to an even greater one.

To understand the Middle East today, we need to listen to everyone's story. We need to recognize there are liabilities as well as limits to power.

Does overwhelming military might protect us from terrorism or, if used unwisely, does it increase our vulnerability to terrorism?

Does overwhelming economic power ensure loyalty or buy friendship even from the countries most indebted to the United States?

Can military and economic might ever become a substitute for sensible and sensitive foreign policy?

And given the dilemma of Iraq, could it indeed be that the most important "multibillion" problem America faces is not deficits measured in dollars, fiscal or trade, but the antagonism of billions of people around the world who object to our foreign policy?

Some experts in and out of government believe American troops should stay and control Iraq at least as long as we did in Japan and Germany after World War II. Such a timetable (a minimum of five years) is out of sync with the times. The world is more impatient.

People in the Middle East, as in the Balkans, are oriented to the past and are driven by values and ideas of honor of a different shape and emphasis than those we derive from American culture. While we assume the Iraqi populace should accept a prolonged American presence because of our good will and desire to establish a Western-style democracy, Muslims see our presence as compounding grievances dating back to the crusades.

A drawn-out occupation plays into the hand of radicals. The longer we stay, the greater the opportunity for radical Baath Party supporters to reignite a war they lost in April and to give a rationale for al-Qaida and others to launch terrorist assaults around the world.

But if we set a firm schedule for drawing down our troops, we define the war as being over in its third week, not in its sixth year. Setting a troop reduction timetable (for example, by the end of next year) has the effect of underscoring our reluctance to become an imperial power and, as important, our determination to control our destiny.

We must recognize the distinction between three endeavors: warfare, reconstruction and occupation. Our armed forces are trained to prevail in the first; they can be helpful in the second; but in the Islamic world no outside power is ever going to be well-received as an occupying police force. In this context, it is the responsibility of public officials to ensure that no American soldier is deployed as a defenseless magnet for terrorist attack - or in such a way as to incite foreign radicals to commit terrorist acts in America.

Nothing would be worse for the world than for us to fail. We must not. The key is to emphasize the most uplifting aspects of our heritage: democracy, opportunity, freedom of thought and worship. Motives matter; so do techniques to advance our values. The lesson of the past year is clear: America does better as a mediator and multiparty peacemaker than as a unilateral interventionist.

Thanks for the emails, I am a big fan. I have grown curious, however, as to what exactly you are trying to do in this trying time of our country. Why on earth do you have links to a Hillary Clinton for President in 2004 website? Are you compromising our chances of re-election by connecting your page to something like that? I'm not sure what to think about that.

IPW has all the democrat candidates' campaign website links listed... Hillary's too. Unannounced as she is, there is no doubt she is part of the players' pack....

IPW's goal is to get the TRUTH out and to do that IPW takes the Democrats' own words to point out what a faulty vision they have for America. It is important to do opposition research in order to know what we are up against. This is why we afford all of our visitors the opportunity to research first hand many of the sources we cite.

Web searches are what bring traffic to a website. If a website doesn't get listed by, say, Google or Yahoo... well, then that website won't get much traffic at all. So, how does a website get listed with search engines? Very complicated answer to that... lots of hoops to jump through. However, one of the top ways is the inclusion of other highly trafficked websites' webpage links. Yup. So, it is strongly to IPW's advantage to have these links on our site. PLUS, interestingly, Democrats visit our site. How do I know? Some of them email me. But, IPW is seen by rival candidates as an asset (they want the "truth" to get out about their rivals...). Apparently, IPW is doing a good job of that.

I have received emails from NEWS reporters saying IPW is very helpful to them. This includes international news reporters... Last month, IPW was contacted by Adam Nadel (an internationally multi-awarded photojournalist) because he wanted to use one of our cartoons for a newspaper he was doing a story for.... the London Sunday Telegraph Times! Yikes!!

Everyday I get an exhaustive report on who all visited the website. I analyze and track these statistics. So, I know quite a bit from these stats and believe me, it is very interesting.... here is a bit of what I see daily in our stats: IPW is seen simultaneously by OUR TROOPS overseas; by those stateside in the U.S. military, government, education, commercial, and professional sectors; and by people in Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Australia, Netherlands, Hong Kong, Singapore, Canada, Sweden, South Africa, New Zealand, Mexico… Quite a listing. The biggest draw of course -- CARTOONS! They seem to speak that "international language" that only visuals can do.

IPW is not only helping people keep the faith in our President and our country here in America – we are helping build this faith globally. The Internet has truly revolutionized how people connect and Iowa Presidential Watch is proud of its well-respected position within the Internet community.

I hope this helps. Maybe I should put this info online for folks to read. The "mechanics" of making a website findable in search engines is not common knowledge and I sure don't want to give the wrong impression to our viewers concerning Hillary's or any other Democrat candidates' webpage link... Additionally, we are not in any way affiliated with a specific candidate, or political party MONEY-wise. We don't get any funding at all from the Republican Party or any candidate or campaign. Our funds come from regular folks. We very much want to keep this website going, but truthfully we are in dire need of funds to do so. Any suggestions on how we might appeal appropriately for contributions?

[this email was in response to the John Kerry "RollingStoned" political cartoon]

No American Citizen, let alone a Presidential Candidate, should treat our President disrespectfully.

Linda Eddy passed your message on to me for a reply. I am the Chairman of Iowa Presidential Watch (IPW).

IPW was set up to help get the word out. Linda's cartoons have run in several newspapers because we offer them for free. Also many people copy and paste the cartoons and email them to their friends. This is one thing that you could encourage. Another thing you could do is ask friends to make a s mall contribution to our cause. We are struggling to keep going and could use any financial support or prayers you could offer.