A Bush Supporter’s “Moral Values”

November 15th, 2004
Categories: Politics

To the Nov. 11 letter writer who asked “which moral-value issue tipped the balance for you” when voting for President Bush, I respectfully respond this way:

Here we go…

It was this administration’s decisive action to free an entire country from the torture and oppression of Saddam Hussein and provide it with an opportunity to live free and choose its own destiny.

Saddam didn’t control the entire country. Large portions of it were already under the control of the United States through no-fly zone enforcement. I’m not ignoring the indisputable torture and oppression, just pointing out the hyperbole of stating that “an entire country” has been freed.

It was Mr. Bush’s decision to protect United States citizens from future acts of terrorism by removing a maniacal killer from power who had already used chemical weapons to exterminate his own people and had close ties to terrorist organizations.

With what weapons would Saddam Hussein have carried out these “future acts of terrorism”? What terrorist organizations did he have “close ties” to? Neither the marsh Arabs nor the Kurds are Saddam’s “people”, regardless of the fact that they live in the same country. Lastly, the helicopters used in the 1988 attack on the Kurdish city of Halabja were American Bells sold to Iraq for “crop spraying”. Dismount the moral high horse. If you want to pretend that the United States government played no role in supporting Saddam’s ability to maniacally kill those that opposed him, go ahead, but the facts remain.

It was Mr. Bush’s No Child Left Behind legislation that required greater accountability of our schools to educate all our children.

Underfunded. I wonder why…

It was this administration’s decision to increase financing in African countries to help fight the horrific AIDS epidemic occurring there.

It was also this administration’s decision to increase financing to those Americans who already have millions of dollars. Should that be a higher priority than helping fight AIDS or fully funding domestic education initiatives?

Those are the moral values that tipped the balance for me when I voted for Mr. Bush.

William D. Lown
Bronxville, N.Y., Nov. 11, 2004

Moral values. Right.

5 Responses to “A Bush Supporter’s “Moral Values””

  1. Eli Sarver, on November 15th, 2004 at 5:14 AM Said:

    Gah, use blockquotes to separate those paras!

  2. Daniel J. Wilson, on November 15th, 2004 at 6:46 PM Said:

    Done.

  3. Andy Bates, on November 16th, 2004 at 3:54 PM Said:

    I take issue with your statement, “It was also this administration’s decision to increase financing to those Americans who already have millions of dollars.” Pardon me, but how is imposing a lower tax rate on someone equivalent to “increased financing”? The idea that those who have more money are somehow less deserving of that money is ludicrous, antiquated, and frankly un-American. Those who “already have millions of dollars” give a much higher proportion of their earnings to charity than those who don’t, Our country as a whole gives more to charity than any other country.

    Please, get over the idea that people who have more money than you somehow don’t deserve that money, and should be required to give up that money to help those who are less fortunate. As soon as you start having that attitude, someone who has less money will suddenly start saying the same thing about you. People deserve to keep whatever money they legally earn. That’s capitalism, and that’s what made America great.

  4. Daniel J. Wilson, on November 16th, 2004 at 7:07 PM Said:

    Way to completely ignore the word “priority”, Andy. I don’t begrudge the wealthy their wealth, but I do take issue with the Bush administration giving a higher priority to tax cuts than to many of their domestic and international initiatives that have been underfunded. Try reading.

  5. Daniel J. Wilson, on November 17th, 2004 at 12:52 AM Said:

    I take issue with your statement, “It was also this administration’s decision to increase financing to those Americans who already have millions of dollars.” Pardon me, but how is imposing a lower tax rate on someone equivalent to “increased financing”?

    The IRS collects money from people to support government programs. If they collect less from a certain group, that group has more money, meaning more financing. Said money cannot then be used for government programs.

    The idea that those who have more money are somehow less deserving of that money is ludicrous, antiquated, and frankly un-American.

    Ignoring the incorrect assumption of my view on your part, I’m glad you are around to tell me what is and isn’t “American”. There ought to be a committee of people that do that.

    Those who “already have millions of dollars” give a much higher proportion of their earnings to charity than those who don’t, Our country as a whole gives more to charity than any other country.

    Those greedy poor and middle class people! Why don’t they give more to charity? Talk about selfish! Also, many charitable donations are (rightly) tax deductible.

    Please, get over the idea that people who have more money than you somehow don’t deserve that money, and should be required to give up that money to help those who are less fortunate. As soon as you start having that attitude, someone who has less money will suddenly start saying the same thing about you.

    Where did I say that the wealthy don’t deserve what they earn through hard work? Don’t put words in my mouth.

    People deserve to keep whatever money they legally earn. That’s capitalism, and that’s what made America great.

    I generally agree, but this really depends on how you define “earn”. Are capital gains earned?

Leave a Reply