The constituent in question recieved one of King's "Special Report's" and it included the incredible statement "The most important unreported fact is that 95% of Iraq is stable and secure." Unreported because it's untrue.
re: Special Report from Washington, Fall 2003
Think, if you were still in Mosul when the wreakage of those two Black Hawks dropped from of sky.
Think about it.
Think about the reported fact that at the time the war resolution was overwhelmingly passed by Congress last fall, all but of 2 of 535 in that august body had a child serving in the military.
Perhaps, then, if you do some hard thinking, you won't return stateside shooting the messengers.
If the media and those of you in Congress had not abdicated your watchdog role prior to war, and examined Administration representations, this headlong rush to Iraq might have been slowed sufficiently until we were better prepared to consolidate and secure post-conflict.
The issue you should be raising now was how we allowed Iraqi munitions depots, most of which we knew about from inspections, to stand unguarded.
That's the question I would want answered if I were Jake Fletcher's dad.
I would have no patience for your Pollyanna finger-pointing.
response from Pete.King@mail.house.gov 11/21/03 4:47pm
Your e-mail is the ultimate non sequitur. It also reeks of self-righteous ignorance.
Unlike you I am capable of hard- thinking and am proud that I voted to authorize the war against Iraq and am proud to support the President and our troops today. No right-thinking person could claim that twelve years is a rush to war; nor could it be disputed that the pre-war intelligence and data were identical to what the Clinton Administration concluded.
As to rocket attacks against helicopters I often thought about that very real possibility during the many hours I was in Black Hawk helicopters flying over Mosul and Baghdad during daylight and at night. What was your point?
As to the munitions sites every effort is being made to secure them and destroy the weapons as quickly as possible. Considering that there are hundreds of these "depots" as you call them and some of them are larger than Manhattan, we are making extraordinary progress.
I think about our troops and our survival as our nation and that's why I will continue to support this President and his policies.
Setting aside your use of "ultimate" hyperbole, refamiliarizing yourself with the content of your own Special Report from Washington might inform the confusion which led you to cry "non sequitar".
"Their[every soldier I met] concern is that distorted media coverage will encourage the terrorists to fight amd cause America to lose its will and withdraw."
That's a resounding consensus, even for a man given to absolutes. The last time there was such universal agreement was Saddam's final 'plebiscite'. What do you make of uncertain military figures cited by other sources? Further examples of "distorted media coverage"?
You questioned what my "point" was, invoking the mid-air collision of those two Black Hawks over Mosul. Again, allow me to defer to your Special Report. In text alongside the photo of your meeting "with troops in Mosul", you declare that, "The most important unreported fact is that 95% of Iraq is stable and secure." Factoring out recent lethal attacks to the south and north, a geographic measure of the Sunni triangle where, as you state, "virtually all the violence occurs," seemingly constitutes more than 5% of the country. Certainly Bagdad, with its estimated 3.8M people[StateDept'86] plus surrounding area comprise well over 20% of Iraq's population. Doubtless, you, and the National Review which, coincidently, also cited that 95%, are able to call upon some variation of Enron-style accounting to explain your figure.
But lest we nitpick over your penchant for quadrupling numbers, why not simply return to you own words:
"As to rocket attacks against helicopters I often thought about that very real possiblity
during the many hours I was in Black Hawk helicopters flying over Mosul and Bagdad."
You should have "very real" concerns flying over Bagdad, by why the same concern over Mosul, in that area north of the Sunni Triangle you describe as "safe and secure"?
Get the point, now, Congressman?
Relative to the point about unsecured weapons depots, which you goosestepped over with "twelve years is" no "rush to war", be good enough to clarify. How long after the President declared "mission accomplished" last May was "every effort to secure and destroy the weapons as quickly as possible" initiated? Would you insist on characterizing the post-conflict plan as 95% effective? And do you hold to the position that the timing of "Iraqi Freedom" was based on imminent threat and could not possibly have benefitted from more preparation?
Clearly, as you declare, you remain "proud"; your chest-thumping is almost palpable between every stroke of your keyboard. Perhaps our nation, our troops and your district would be better served by less "right thinking" and more objective thought.
Oh, and excuse the odor if I continue to "reek of self-righteous ignorance."