Young Conservative Movement

Posted by:
Posted on: July 13, 2006 02:20 PM

Maybe it is because he raised funds for Bush that he would be labeled GOP. I think I read he raised over $100,000 for Bush.

Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 13, 2006 02:27 PM

Whether that is true or not, he is not a GOP lobbyist. That implies that only the GOP broke the rules. In reality, it was ranking members from both sides.

Posted by:
Posted on: July 13, 2006 02:39 PM

Lets see:

• Is Republican
• Raised money for Bush
• Closest ties with Republicans

Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 13, 2006 02:43 PM

Abramoff Lobbying & Political Contributions to Democrats, per FEC Records

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Received At Least – $22,500

* Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Received At Least – $6,500

* Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Received At Least – $1,250

* Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Received At Least – $2,000

* Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Received At Least – $20,250

* Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Received At Least – $21,765

* Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Received At Least – $7,500

* Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Received At Least – $12,950

* Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Received At Least – $8,000

* Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Received At Least – $7,500

* Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Received At Least – $14,792

* Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Received At Least – $79,300

* Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least – $14,000

* Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Received At Least – $2,000

* Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) Received At Least – $1,250

* Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Received At Least – $45,750

* Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Received At Least – $9,000

* Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Received At Least – $2,000

* Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Received At Least – $14,250

* Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Received At Least – $3,300

* Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least – $98,550

* Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Received At Least – $28,000 * Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) Received At Least – $4,000

* Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,000

* Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least – $29,830

* Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least – $14,891

* Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Received At Least – $10,550

* Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Received At Least – $78,991

* Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Received At Least – $20,168

* Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least – $5,200

* Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Received At Least – $7,500

* Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Received At Least – $2,300

* Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Received At Least – $3,500

* Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Received At Least – $68,941

* Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) Received At Least – $4,000

* Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Received At Least – $4,500

* Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Received At Least – $4,300

* Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least – $29,550

* Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,250

* Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Received At Least – $6,250 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte $423,480

Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $354,700

Democratic National Cmte $65,720

Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) $42,500
Patty Murray (D-Wash) $40,980
Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) $36,000
Harry Reid (D-Nev) $30,500
Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) $28,000
Tom Daschle (D-SD) $26,500
Democratic Party of Michigan $23,000
Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) $20,600
Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) $19,000
Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) $17,500
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $15,500
Democratic Party of Oklahoma $15,000
Chris John (D-La) $15,000
John Breaux (D-La) $13,750
Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) $13,600
Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) $12,000
Mary L. Landrieu (D-La) $11,500
Barney Frank (D-Mass) $11,100
Max Baucus (D-Mont) $11,000
Maria Cantwell (D-Wash) $10,000
Democratic Party of North Dakota $10,000
Nick Rahall (D-WVa) $10,000

Democratic Party of South Dakota $9,500

Democratic Party of Minnesota $9,000

Ron Kind (D-Wis) $9,000

Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) $8,500

Joe Baca (D-Calif) $8,000

Dick Durbin (D-Ill) $8,000

Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) $7,523

Tim Johnson (D-SD) $7,250

Democratic Party of New Mexico $6,250

Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) $6,000

David E. Bonior (D-Mich) $5,000

Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ) $5,000

Democratic Party of Montana $5,000

Fritz Hollings (D-SC) $5,000

Jay Inslee (D-Wash) $5,000

Thomas P. Keefe Jr. (D-Wash) $5,000

Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md) $5,000

Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) $5,000

Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) $4,500

Tom Carper (D-Del) $4,000

Kent Conrad (D-ND) $4,000

Jerry Kleczka (D-Wis) $4,000

Sander Levin (D-Mich) $4,000

Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif) $4,000

George Miller (D-Calif) $4,000

Kalyn Cherie Free (D-Okla) $3,500

James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) $3,500

Charles J. Melancon (D-La) $3,100

Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) $3,000

Cal Dooley (D-Calif) $3,000

John B. Larson (D-Conn) $3,000

David R. Obey (D-Wis) $3,000

Ed Pastor (D-Ariz) $3,000

Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) $3,000

Richard M. Romero (D-NM) $3,000

Brad Sherman (D-Calif) $3,000

Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) $3,000

Max Cleland (D-Ga) $2,500

Grace Napolitano (D-Calif) $2,500

Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) $2,500

Bill Luther (D-Minn) $2,250

Gene Taylor (D-Miss) $2,250

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) $2,000

Ken Bentsen (D-Texas) $2,000

Dan Boren (D-Okla) $2,000

Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn) $2,000

John D. Dingell (D-Mich) $2,000

Doug Dodd (D-Okla) $2,000

Ned Doucet (D-La) $2,000

Lane Evans (D-Ill) $2,000

Sam Farr (D-Calif) $2,000

John Neely Kennedy (D-La) $2,000

Carl Levin (D-Mich) $2,000

Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) $2,000

Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) $2,000

Robert Menendez (D-NJ) $2,000

Adam Schiff (D-Calif) $2,000
Ronnie Shows (D-Miss) $2,000
Adam Smith (D-Wash) $2,000
Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif) $2,000
Mike Thompson (D-Calif) $2,000
Maxine Waters (D-Calif) $2,000
Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) $1,500
Norm Dicks (D-Wash) $1,500
John Kerry (D-Mass) $1,400
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) $1,000
Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif) $1,000
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) $1,000
Jim Costa (D-Calif) $1,000
Susan A. Davis (D-Calif) $1,000
Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) $1,000
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $1,000
Tim Holden (D-Pa) $1,000
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) $1,000
Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) $1,000
Jim Maloney (D-Conn) $1,000
David Phelps (D-Ill) $1,000
Charles S. Robb (D-Va) $1,000
Brian David Schweitzer (D-Mont) $1,000
Pete Stark (D-Calif) $1,000
Gloria Tristani (D-NM) $1,000
Derrick B. Watchman (D-Ariz) $1,000
Rick Weiland (D-SD) $1,000
Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) $1,000
Ron Wyden (D-Ore) $1,000
Bob Borski (D-Pa) $720
Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) $500
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif) $500
Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) $500
Democratic Party of Washington $500
Barbara Lee (D-Calif) $500
Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif) $500

Grand Total $1,541,673

link

Posted by:
Posted on: July 13, 2006 02:52 PM

Why did you not link to the original site, which has color coded Republican was Democrat. Seems to me to be even or slightly leading towards Republican.

But if I recall, almost all his lobbying efforts were to push forward Repulican ideas or issues. Even money going to a Democrat would have had a Republican issue targeted.

Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 13, 2006 02:54 PM

1.5 Million dollars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by:
Posted on: July 13, 2006 03:01 PM

Even better...also on the same site, use the "detail by donor" display. Abramoff gave NO money to Dems.

All the monies you listed came from Indian tribes, which was one of his interests. But his other major interest was raising contribution funds for Republicans, which was his party and where he donated his personal monies.

Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 13, 2006 03:17 PM

link

This even comes from a liberal source:

We spoke to Steve Chaggaris, a CBS News producer who works with Borger, about this question. Here’s his response (figures courtesy of The Center for Responsive Politics):

“Abramoff may have never personally given money to Democrats but that's not the issue here -- the issue is that Abramoff convinced several Indian tribes that he was working for to donate money as part of his regular business.

Look at any analysis of ‘Abramoff donations’ and they include not only contributions from Abramoff but donations from the Indian tribes.

In fact, donations directly from Abramoff and his wife represent barely 5% ($204,253) of the total money considered ‘Abramoff donations.’ ($4,454,261). The remaining 95% or so are donations from the Indian tribes he represented ($4,215,508) or from SunCruz Casinos ($34,500).

While twice as much was given to Republicans than Democrats, Democrats still received over $1.5 million from Abramoff-related entities - a significant amount of money.”

Posted by:
Posted on: July 13, 2006 03:30 PM

This even comes from a liberal source.

All that quote shows is he is a lobbyist for Indian casinos, not Democrats. The example you gave shows he gave monies to Republicans and Democrats in support of Indian casinos. Therefore, he is an "Indian Casino Lobbyist". It was not in support of Democrats, but to pursuade them towards the efforts of the casinos.

He specifically raised money for Republicans and Bush at other times, which does make him a "Republican Lobbyist".

I am not saying Dems did nothing wrong, but he was a Republican supporter.

Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 13, 2006 03:35 PM

Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $354,700

I am not saying the GOP did not have ties, but he had far too many ties with the democrats to be considered a GOP lobbyist. A republican would not donate $354,700 to a campaign against republicans.

Posted by:
Posted on: July 13, 2006 03:44 PM

Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $354,700 was from Indian Tribes that hired Abramson to push through their issues. See this link.

Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 13, 2006 03:47 PM

Actually read it this time:

We spoke to Steve Chaggaris, a CBS News producer who works with Borger, about this question. Here’s his response (figures courtesy of The Center for Responsive Politics):

“Abramoff may have never personally given money to Democrats but that's not the issue here -- the issue is that Abramoff convinced several Indian tribes that he was working for to donate money as part of his regular business.

Look at any analysis of ‘Abramoff donations’ and they include not only contributions from Abramoff but donations from the Indian tribes.

In fact, donations directly from Abramoff and his wife represent barely 5% ($204,253) of the total money considered ‘Abramoff donations.’ ($4,454,261). The remaining 95% or so are donations from the Indian tribes he represented ($4,215,508) or from SunCruz Casinos ($34,500).

While twice as much was given to Republicans than Democrats, Democrats still received over $1.5 million from Abramoff-related entities - a significant amount of money.”

Posted by:
Posted on: July 13, 2006 08:55 PM

Chad, do you even understand the role and actions of lobbyists? Take off your conservative glasses for a second and look at how politics work. You are so blinded by your faith in the Republicans that you are ignoring "how" lobbying works. Lobbyists pass on the money and use their political influence to push through the concerns and issues of those they represent.

In pushing through what ever issues the Indian casinos were trying to in act, money was given to both Republicans and Democrats by the same identical tribes. It was not party driven, but issue driven. The Indian groups were trying to buy their political issue interests of both parties.

You are using the wrong data to try to support your arguments here. You need to find data that is not directly linked to issues, but actually shows the he was supporting the Dems. Others have showed he directly supported the Republicans but equal evidence has not been identified for the Democrats.

You are confusing the difference between donations made in lobbying efforts (which often go to both parties to buy support) and those donated in support of a political party.

Posted by: Toby
Posted on: July 17, 2006 12:00 PM

Here are Abramoff’s seven tribal clients, according to Morris’ analysis, complete with their pre-Abramoff and post Abramoff contributions:

1) Tribe: Saginaw Chippewa (Michigan)
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 9/2000): $371,250
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 9/2000): $285,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (9/2000 - 2003): $191,960
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (9/2000 - 2003): $401,500

2) Tribe: Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 9/2000): $61,320
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 9/2000): $48,560
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (9/2000 - 2003): $64,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP(9/2000 - 2003): $162,590

3) Tribe: Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 4/2001): $1,000
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 4/2001): $750
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (4/2001 - 6/2004): $40,500
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (4/2001 - 6/2004): $168,750

4) Tribe: Pueblo of Sandia (New Mexico)
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 3/2002): $24,000
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 3/2002): $15,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (3/2002 - 6/2003): $18,500
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (3/2002 - 6/2003): $11,500

5) Tribe: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (California)
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 7/2002): $371,250
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 7/2002): $400,200
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (7/2002 - 6/2004): $70,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (7/2002 - 6/2004): $216,708

6) Tribe: Cherokee Nation (Oklahoma)
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 1/2003): $35,470
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 1/2003): $6,050
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1/2003 - 12/2003): $250
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1/2003 - 12/2003): $0

7) Tribe: Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 1995): $4,600
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 1995): $31,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1995 - 2004): $409,273
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1995 - 2004): $884,927

As the above numbers show, four out of seven tribes -- Saginaw, Chitimacha, Coushatta and Mississippi – saw their contributions to Republicans increase significantly, even vastly, after they became Abramoff’s clients.

At the same time, two of those four tribes -- Saginaw and Chitimacha -- saw their giving to Democrats drop or remain static. The other two -- tribes Coushatta and Mississippi -- did see their giving to Dems rise under Abramoff, but by amounts that were dwarfed by the increases in giving to the GOP.
Taken together, Abramoff’s tribal clients gave $868,890 to Dems before hiring him; afterwards, they gave $794,483 -- a decrease of nine percent. By contrast, the tribes’ donations to Republicans went from $786,560 pre-Abramoff to $1,845,975 after he became their lobbyist -- an increase of 135 percent.

Tribal money isn't even close to the entire issue here, but I think that these figures show that Abramoff definitely favored republicans, even in the case of your strongest argument.

Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 17, 2006 12:21 PM

Those numbers do not show his political leanings. He is a representative of the tribes. He simply gives to those who would support his clients' issues. If your arguement was valid, you could assume a stock broker for a republican senator is a republican.

Posted by: Toby
Posted on: July 17, 2006 01:36 PM

The tribal money figures were merely an attempt to illustrate that there is also major culpability within the GOP. The thrust of your thread seemed to be an attempt to mitigate the responsibility of the GOP, and I think you shouldn't.
Lets use the stockbroker analogy in a slightly different way.
Let us assume Abramoff is a 'stockbroker', and seemingly a good one at that. It would then make sense that someone with as much experience and wisdom in lobbying, or 'stockbroking', would buy the best performing product. A good 'stockbroker' also has a balanced portfolio. He may have directed money to Dems, but clearly gave more to republicans. Why give more money to one group unless your cash buys better performance there?
Assuming that Abramoff isn't strictly a GOP lobbyist, it still looks bad that the lions share went to the GOP. Abramoff has been on the hill long enough to know who his performers are. A consummate businessman would never throw the bulk of his money into non-performance. With a republican majority in both houses, it makes sense that most contributions went to republicans. I believe that when you are the majority, it becomes even more important to our democracy to remain free of corruption, and even more serious when you don't. You should be more angry about this scandle, and less inclined to absolve anyone.
So lets address the main issue of this thread:
Why is it so important to you to assign, or unassign, Abramoff to a political party? It seems to me that the more important people here are the ones who accepted the checks in exchange for political favors. Abramoff may deserve years in prison for this, but the representatives in his pockets deserve longer. I'm not absolving the Dems of their own culpability. It just so happens that the list of GOP contributions is undeniably greater. You can't argue that simply because Abramoff doesn't have a tattoo saying 'GOP' on his ass that it shouldn't look bad for the GOP that they were his biggest customers. So lets not twist words here: Abramoff is a crook, and every person who took money from him is also a crook for undermining our representative democracy. The real outrage here should not be directed at either party, but each individual representative for making sure that your vote and mine count less because we didn't throw money at them. It is understandable to want to believe that your own party is above it, but don't blind yourself to corruption. Corruption doesn't care about political affiliation, and neither should we. Trying to minimize the blame for either party leaves the problem unsolved. So don't get angry about people affiliating the GOP with this stuff. You should own it; tell your reps that this is bullsh*t, and you won't stand for it. Defending your party like that only sends a message that you're just itching to disbelieve the next trangression. Blind party allegience is a self-serving politicians wet dream.

Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 17, 2006 01:47 PM

You are misunderstanding the analogy. I am saying that it was in the best interest of tribes for him to give the money to the GOP and that is why he did it. Is it out of the realm of possibility that he gave the republicans more money to try and sway their votes to the democrats’ views? Am I saying the GOP is innocent... no. I am not saying that at all. All I am saying is that it is not responsible to label him as a GOP lobbyist when that is not certain. You have to remember that the purpose of a lobbyist is to get politicians to accept their clients' point of view. There is no political affiliation. A lobbyist sole purpose is to push a few main issues for their client.

Posted by:
Posted on: July 17, 2006 02:21 PM

If lobbyist have no political information, why did the GOP push for the K-Street project.

Also, Abrahamoff has been associated with the College Republican National Committee, is one of the founding members of National Center for Public Policy Research (a conservative think tank) and other conservative groups.

I would also bet he is a registered Republican.

How can you not think this guy can accurately be described as a GOP lobbyist?

Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 17, 2006 02:30 PM

I don't care what he does in his personal life. The fact of the matter is that he represents his clients interests that are not necessarily his own. The strategy behind his money giving is also not known. He could be rewarding Republicans for matching his CLIENT'S views or he could be trying to sway them to vote liberal. His personal political affiliation should have no bearing on this arguement.

Posted by:
Posted on: July 17, 2006 02:42 PM

His personal political affiliation should have no bearing on this arguement.

You cannot detached little portions of the truth and still expect people to believe your arguments. You lose creditability when you do that. Saying one fact is relevant and another cannot be included does not improve your arguement, nor is it logical.

Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 17, 2006 02:49 PM

Let me put it in simple terms...
He only gets more money from his client if they see results. Money is much stronger than politics. There are many people that will abandon their politics for money. Why do you think lobbying works?

Posted by:
Posted on: July 17, 2006 03:04 PM

Jack Abramoff:
National chairman College Republican National Committee, 1981—1985
Political Affiliation: Republican

64% of all monies went Republican: see graph

All of the contributions in his name went ONLY to Republicans. I do not see any Democrat donations in this list either.

Abramoff was a Bush fundraiser, i.e. "pioneer".

Abramoff Hosted ’03 Fundraiser for Republican Vitter

I cannot find any mention of him hosting a Democratic fundraiser party or donating funds Democratic. I guarantee even if you ask him he would say he was a Republicn lobbyist and/or fundrasier.

Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 17, 2006 03:10 PM

Let me put it in simple terms...
He only gets more money from his client if they see results. Money is much stronger than politics. There are many people that will abandon their politics for money. Why do you think lobbying works?

If he gives it to republicans and doesn't produce results, he gets booted and doesn't make any more money. A good businessman can seperate politics from his/her job so that more money is made. His personal politics are not relevent if he shuts them out of his job. Republican or Democrat, he's going to do whatever makes him the most money and allows him to keep his job.

Posted by:
Posted on: July 17, 2006 03:18 PM

A good businessman can seperate politics from his/her job so that more money is made.

Posted by:
Posted on: July 17, 2006 03:28 PM

I see... resorting to personal attacks.

Posted by:
Posted on: July 17, 2006 10:52 PM

Chad seriously - you are out of your mind. Abramoff has pled guilty to crimes. those who have been indicted are ALL Republicans. They traded favors for trips, cash, payoffs and goodies.
Abramoff didnt contribute to Democrats. He bragged about that publily. And even if he did, none of those donations are under investigation.
If you look at some of the donations listed to the Democrats on your list you will see that they came after Abramoff was fired from his lobbying firm or after he was fired by the tribes. This list was created by the National Republican Senatorial Campaign and is obviously and thoroughly flawed. It has been debunked by the media and by the investigators.
Give it up. Power corrupts. Tom DeLay's office was a money laundering operation. People are going to jail for what they did while working for him. Nobody in a single Democratic office is going to jail for their relationships with Jack Abramoff. That'sa fact that this silly list cannot change.

Posted by: Xavier Keough
Posted on: November 11, 2006 08:12 PM

A Letter To The American People…

In the wake of the fallout from last week’s election, and the consequent rancor being spewed by like-minded liberals from around the world, I’m continuously amazed how President Bush is vilified and reviled. National and international media outlets have incessantly painted this man as an insidious, incompetent, and polarizing figure; somehow almost entirely emanating from their stark opposition to the Iraq War. Yet, in the span of 6 years, too many have forgotten what we have overcome and accomplished. Under President Bush’s leadership, our economy is the strongest it’s been in a decade…despite the economic devastation caused by 9/11 and corporate scandals; excessive tax burdens have been lifted from business and working class Americans; faith based initiatives have put the focus back on the religious ideals engrained by the founding fathers; Iraq and Afghanistan were liberated and democratic elections subsequently held; Saddam Hussein…literally responsible for over a million deaths…has been overthrown and brought to justice; and last but not least, we have not had a terrorist attack since September 11th, 2001.
Of course, those who are drunk with the rapture from hating Bush will summarily dismiss these accomplishments as garnish. How quickly people have forgotten that on one fateful day in September…when innocent lives were instantly extinguished by commercial airplanes or left to suffer in the smoke-filled ruins of buildings as family and friends leapt to their death….America had endured the worst terrorist attack in its history. And it is this attack, which is at the heart of this entire discussion. Why? Because the very same terrorist organization, al Qaeda, which seared those indelible images of death into our consciousness forever, is now responsible for the deaths of over a 100,000 Iraqi citizens; the very same terrorist organization that war critics claimed had no ties to Saddam Hussein. Yet, miraculously, numerous al Qaeda leaders and operatives have been captured or killed in Iraq. In fact, mere days ago, al Qaeda proclaimed they would win the Iraq War. If this is not astounding, then we simply are allowing political prejudice to destroy that which is most precious to our country, if not the world…our humanity.
We are no longer fighting a standing army or its government, but a rogue group of murderers. Sadly, Al Qaeda has murdered countless Iraqi Muslims….in markets, schools, and even hospitals…simply to spite our efforts and derail democracy, all while much of the civilized world has idly sat by; the same virtuous world which did nothing to alleviate a people’s suffering under Saddam Hussein, but starkly opposed us when we actually tried to do something about it. And yes, equally tragic, is the fact American soldiers have been killed…though the numbers pale in comparison to single day battles during the Civil War (The Battle of Antietam or Gettysburg) or the entire American Revolution: conflicts that paved the way from the very freedoms we enjoy today. My question is, wouldn’t we as Americans, if our citizens and families were being killed almost daily from terrorist attacks, do everything in our power to stop them? So why is it any different in the eyes of the media and many Democrats, when it comes to Iraq? It’s as repugnant as watching a rape across the street and doing nothing about it. Simply put, when did so many stop caring? We, as Americans, who serve as an international beacon for liberty, are better people than that.
If the media and certain politicians wish to use the suffering of a nation for their blatant demagoguery, than we should use an even greater vehemence in combating that which we would unequivocally oppose in our own neighborhoods. The Iraq War is over, but the battle against terrorism is just beginning. For if we abandon our principles now, what price do we put on our freedoms, if not our children’s lives, tomorrow.
This letter is not meant to be divisive or belittling to anyone. In light of last week’s election, it’s only natural, if not typically healthy, for the political pendulum to swing in the halls of public opinion. Regardless of who is president, or the party in power, I will always show respect and allegiance to my country. However, when many of those same people…including those institutions supposedly predicated on journalistic integrity…distort and viciously attack a man who has faced adversity with the utmost resolve, then I in good conscience cannot stand idly by and say nothing. In my eyes, there is no greater mandate, regardless of the recent political fluctuations in Congress, than September 11th, 2001. With this in mind, I leave you with the immortal words of John F. Kennedy.

“We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship,
support any friend, oppose any foe to ensure the survival of liberty.”
John F. Kennedy

God Bless America…God Bless our troops!

Xavier Keough
Emporia, Kansas