At Last ! The Michael Castle apology
Fellow Delawareans,
It has been my privilege to serve you in Congress and I have taken the trust that you have placed in me seriously. As your Congressman I have striven to balance the immediate needs of Delaware with the long term needs of the country and am proud of my record of accomplishment.
To a large degree, those accomplishments have been possible because of my determination to look beyond ideology and political party. Putting the demands of partisanship aside, I have worked hard at my goals of represent every Delawarean in Congress and believe that I have done that.
However, there is one area where the wedge of partisanship not only separated me from your concerns, but also separated me from my conscience. That was voting for George Bush and chairing his election and reelection campaigns here in Delaware.
By supporting George Bush, when my intellect and conscience told me to speak out against him, I did a grave disservice to you my constituents and my supporters and ultimately to the country.
Like many of you, I was initially mislead and then hoped for the best regarding the President, but it was soon obvious to me that he was lying about the Iraq war and actively working to undermine our constitutional form of government. At the moment of that realization I should have unequivocally withdrawn my support.
My conscience demanded that I speak up, but I did not. I sincerely apologize for my cowardice in not doing so.
Knowingly departing from the dictates of my intellect and conscience is something that I will have to contend with for the rest of my life. And while I know that I can not restore my integrity through this apology, I hope that I can restore some small part of my reputation for honest and intelligent service to the state and people of Delaware.
To that end I promise to back up this apology with a sustained commitment to oppose the President and his plans to escalate and enlarge the catastrophe in Iraq that my silence enabled.
Sincerely
Michael N. Castle
Yes. This is a template that Wenky is welcome to use when she drafts the actual apology letter.
Interesting.
I see we are in full moonbat mode today
You know in your heart that it is the letter Castle needs to write.
Jason,
Your alarm clock is going off….wakey…wakey…
Actually Jason. Dan Rather is calling CBS as we speak to see if he can host a special 60 minutes on the letter. It just has to be real!
Knowingly departing from the dictates of my intellect and conscience is something that I will have to contend with for the rest of my life.
You know, this is a very important point to make. Crazy wingnuts like Chris have an excuse. Like children, they get a pass. They are happy followers that greedily suck up whatever fatuity they are fed.
But Castle is a smart guy. His support of Bush is appalling, and even he must be appalled by it.
“Crazy wingnuts like Chris have an excuse.”
You guys are unbelievable! You can’t handle debate. When I debate I am a wingnut! Fine have it your way. Bring home the troops. Fly the white surrender flag. Hell France has done it enough and we know how much you love France (well did until this weekend). You all think you are the great intellegencia. Live in your smug little worlds. When your standing there with dozens of building crashing down, suitcase nukes popping off everyday, and Harry Reid screaming “See, I was right, we did lose” Then you will all be vindicated. Too smart for your own good.
And for the record. You know nothing about me. In your conceit you have failed to notice that. But then again, when will I learn. If you are conservative you MUST be dumb, deaf, or blind.
Guess I am even too crazy to understand that.
I agree, Castle’s sin is the greater. But I’m not willing to be so generous to the followers and let them off the hook altogether.
Even if you don’t have smarts, Bush’s preemptive war was an affront to human decency that anyone with a conscience should have recoiled from.
When your standing there with dozens of building crashing down, suitcase nukes popping off everyday,
Again, I think you are missing the point. the Iraq war has done nothing to make this any less likely – in fact it has increased the probability.
Long week (and its only Tuesday). Can’t believe I lost it. Calmer now.
“Again, I think you are missing the point. the Iraq war has done nothing to make this any less likely – in fact it has increased the probability.”
Unfortunately, this is where we part company in our opinions. I respect that it is your belief and that of a great deal of American’s, particularly as this is the point of view of many in the media, which only reinforces those views.
However, there are also a great deal of Americans who believe it does have a lot to do with the war on terror. And we are not the blind sheep that we are made out to be. Attacking Iraq (bad intel or not) was a strategic move in the war on terror. We can disagree in our assessment of the strategic value (or harm, as you believe), but it was a strategic move. A ruthless dictator and his scumbag sons are gone. Many of his murderous associates have been captured or killed.
We disagree on the WMD issue. You (collectively) argue there is no proof he ever had any. Those in my camp argue that the potential was indeed there, and we have had some Iraqis tell us that the evidence was removed and is some cases buried in the run up to the invasion. Not altogether implausible given that 20 Migs were pulled out of the desert sand in August 2003 in an area where soldiers routinely patrolled and walked over for more than a dozen weeks without knowing they were there. (Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=28631)
We also disagree on the advisability of fighting a proxy war next to Iran. I believe that ultimately if democracy does grow in the sand in Iraq, it will spur a democracy movement in the proud nation of Iran (“If Iraq can do it, we sure has hell can!”). I also think that it will also drive a wedge in the Iran/Syria link as all ground routes would have to go through Turkey, and not the part of Turkey that is particularly friendly to terrorists.
I realize you do not agree with the above points, but that does not make them any less invalid. They are just as logical as your opinions.
I realize I have been slinging the insults a little too much this week. I thought I was being entertaining. But I was probably just getting a kick off of the emotional energy.
But the one thing we all agree on is the war is a very serious matter. You see the future lying in us ending it as quickly as possible, and I see our only viable option as seeing it through to a successful conclusion.
I guess we will just have to disagree.
Now if only we can get Obama to apologize for claiming to oppose the war yet voting for every war spending bill Bush sent to Congress before he, Obama, heard the call of the people to run for prez opposing the war.
“Jason of Illinois” will get right on it.
20 Migs were pulled out of the desert sand
Those zombie MiGs are the WORST!
Even if he had MIGS they were useless and enforcing the “no fly zone” was the kind of low risk/high return operations we could have kept going for twenty years.
Saddam was cut off and blustering. Bush used that bluster for his own PR purposes. You are now using that bluster to support your point that attacking Iraq was a good idea. You are right. We’ll never agree on that.
But say (for the sake of argument) that attacking Iraq was a good strategic move. What one thing has Bush done right since?
Completely destroying the Iraqi’s infrastructure – was that smart?
What in the undermanned, under funded occupation the incubated chaos was a good call?
Firing the General who dared to speak up and tell the truth about the cost and duration of the occupation – was that a smart move?
Demobilizing the Iraqi army and sending them home with their guns, was that good strategy?
Was taking over the prison of Saddam’s repression and cruelty – and then running it as a house of pain humiliation and torture, was that a good idea?
Staffing up the occupation with interns from the Heritage Foundation and Regent’s University grads who knew nothing about the economics, history or culture of the region who wanted above all to protect the rights of gun Iraqi owners and limit abortions? Was that a good idea?
Turning away aid from Europe in order to save all the oil contracts for Halliburton? Was that a good idea?
Wasting the money that did get to Iraq on unaccountable contractors who walked away from unfinished projects with shrink wrapped “bricks” money under their arms – was that smart management?
By any measure Saddam was a bad man. However, history will show that Bush is worse.
Where to begin….
“Even if he had MIGS they were useless and enforcing the “no fly zone” was the kind of low risk/high return operations we could have kept going for twenty years.”
Not getting the point. If we couldn’t find 20 friggin Migs buried in the sand under where our troops routinely patroled for three months, how can we expect to find the WMD materials which you can honestly put in on copy box and bury deep in the sand in the country the size of California.
“But say (for the sake of argument) that attacking Iraq was a good strategic move. What one thing has Bush done right since?”
Not run up the white flag like dear old Sen. Reid.
“Completely destroying the Iraqi’s infrastructure – was that smart?”
Smart no…necessary definitely. The initial invasion was one of the greatest military achievements in history. And while sadly many citizens were caught in the crossfire, we took greater care than any military to avoid collateral damage. We could have treated Bagdhad like Dresden…but we didn’t. And yet we take more heat of Bagdhad.
“What in the undermanned, under funded occupation the incubated chaos was a good call?”
Undermanning and underfunding is one thing I agree with you on. Bush figured if he did not fund wildy, liberals would keep supporting the effort. This was certainly a mistake he made. Liberals would never support him no matter what he did. So he really should have fully followed his instincts and made sure the troops had everything they needed. Hopefully he has figured that out now and will ignore the whining left.
“Demobilizing the Iraqi army and sending them home with their guns, was that good strategy?”
Oh by all means, lets send them home unarmed to face the terrorists. You gun control nuts…
“Was taking over the prison of Saddam’s repression and cruelty – and then running it as a house of pain humiliation and torture, was that a good idea?”
The inmates there were KNOWN terrorists. If humilating their muderous asses will result in information that could save even one innocent Iraqi or allied solider’s life, then fire up that juice and pass me some nipple!
“Staffing up the occupation with interns from the Heritage Foundation and Regent’s University grads who knew nothing about the economics, history or culture of the region who wanted above all to protect the rights of gun Iraqi owners and limit abortions? Was that a good idea?”
(Source: MoveOn.org no doubt.)
“Turning away aid from Europe in order to save all the oil contracts for Halliburton? Was that a good idea?”
(Same source as above no doubt)
“Wasting the money that did get to Iraq on unaccountable contractors who walked away from unfinished projects with shrink wrapped “bricks” money under their arms – was that smart management?”
Unfortunately corruption happens. We should prosecute the offenders to the fullest extent of the law and ban them from future contracts.
“By any measure Saddam was a bad man. However, history will show that Bush is worse.”
It is statements like this sir that reinforce my opinion of just how out of touch with reality liberals are. That a rational human being could even conceive of such a thing if a truly dismaying thought….
The general pre-invasion consensus that Saddam had WMD’s included a lot of leading Democrats who should welcome turncoat Castle to their ranks. Yet none of them are attacked by Rep. Castle. He has prided himself all along on his “independence”… from good sense and America’s best interests, unfortunately. His pride has been in the way of meaningful accomplishment and honest representation for years. Mike Castle is the reason I have not contributed to the Republican Party since his election. I support Conservatives proudly, and thank you, I’ll pick them myself. Go Chris!
Louanne, fine, you hate for your reasons, we’ll hate him for ours.