Thanks for the response Droopy.

I see from this little exercise that we have all learned to be specific about what we are talking about, a general comment will draw the wrath of everyone.

1. The war in Iraq has been going on since 1991, a truce was signed, but Iraq broke that at every turn. Sadam led his military to kill over 300,000 Shihite Muslems because GHWB (41) promised to support them. Note that the Democrats who were controlling both the House and Senate at that time cut $6 Billion out of the funding for the CIA and prevented the support for the Shihites. Sadam was shooting at our aircraft routinely and defying the United States and the United Nations, additionally he was building his military and developing military equipment that went well beyond the weapons authorized by the UN treaty. Additionally, Sadam was paying cash benefits to the Palestinian Terrorists who were attacking Israel. Sadam was fomenting war at every turn.

a). As far as WMD is concerned, Sadam had over three months to take them out of the country while the French, Germans, and Russians protested the UN call for action. By the way, the French, Germans and Russians were profiting greatly and sending weapons into Iraq which was in violation of the UN treaty under the "Oil for Food Program".

Also note that a truck loaded with sarin gas was apprehended in Aman, Jordan in 2003. The gas came from Syria, and since Syria does not have a chemical capability, how did they get the gas? The gas was taken into Jordan by al Quida terrorists because Jordan was supporting the war effort.

b). There may have been no direct 9/11 connection, but there was an al Quida connection, they were running at least two chemical developing areas in Iraq. One ran into Iran, because Turkey would not allow our troops to cross their country to cut them off and form an early alliance with the Kurds. The other was South West of Baghdad, and precursor chemicals and developmental instructions were found, but no actual chemicals. Were they taken into Syria?

c). I couldn't agree more, his people were terrorized by his actions, public beatings, surgical removal of the right hand of at least seven men, rape rooms, torture chambers, killing rooms, beatings for people who didn't perform as he wanted them to. 300,000 bodies in mass graves and they are still finding more bodies. He was a leader?

d). True, do you have a solution? Put it out there so that we can all learn how to do it.

e). The statement that the war has created more terrorists is a general statement, state facts please. Those people were in the Madras's and they were in training long before the war. Most of them do the terrorist thing for money. That is a poor area of the world and they only have their religion which is supported by many Muslim leaders in countries who are supposed to be our friends. They support the terrorist activities so that they won't attack the leadership of those countries.

You have stated your reasons for not supporting the war now and I do respect that. Take some time, though, to look at the actual activities that have been taking place in that area of the world. Also take some time to read the propaganda that is put out by their news media, you will see when you read the propaganda that it is definitely slanted toward supporting the terrorists movements. To leave them alone over there will only allow them to grow in numbers, terrorizing their own people, killing their own people, demeaning and subjugating their women, killing everyone who doesn't believe as they do. Mob rule is what you get and is what they have.

2. Hurricane response.

a). Yes, there was a failure of ALL levels of response verging on criminal in my opinion also, but from the information that I have seen on TV, I have to question about the direction of the anger. I would like for you to note that Brown handled five major hurricanes in 2004 and there was no outcry of incompetence. Why was the response to Katrina so incompetent? I feel that an evaluation of actions is needed. Note that the actions for Alabama and Mississippi are not listed in the incompetent actions list, why is it that only the flooding of the city of New Orleans brings out incompetence? A thorough review of actions by all involved is needed to see what really happened. While that is going on, also look at the attitudes of the people who didn't evacuate even though they were warned. The who done what with which and to whom needs to be formally evaluated. Who had functional plans, who did not. Then make judgments.

b). True, Bush did not create the problem. Yes, Bush stated his disdain for the slow responses of the parties involved, but again I refer you to the answer above and ask for an evaluation before judgment is passed. Political rhetoric does no good for anyone.

Remember, the military moves all of its flyable, float-able, and damageable equipment out of the area to protect the equipment during the hurricane. After that, it takes time to provide the fuel and required support for that equipment so that the equipment will be able to function. Having the Yellow and Blue flights rush into the area and sit on the ground without fuel or maintenance support would prove to be a problem, just as taking the time to support the actions as they are being performed. Ships, boats, trucks, and aircraft don't appear without support, and trucks are limited to driving on the roads, many of which were flooded in the case of New Orleans. Almost all of the canals and waterways were blocked with debris from the hurricane, or moving too fast due to the flooding caused by the tidal wave. Logic is required.

c). You are right about heads rolling, especially the Governor who stopped the transportation of food and water to the Civic Center and the Super Dome so that the people would leave the city in order to get sustenance.

I do agree with many of your premises, but then again I call for research and actual facts rather than political rhetoric. I have tried to keep out of this Frey but I had to respond to this letter.

BABY HUEY, Gator 519