Tom Finch – 8/9/06

This page was last updated on August 9, 2006.

An incompetent leader; Tom Finch; Beaver County Times; August 9, 2006.

Mr. Finch’s letters never disappoint. This letter is little more than a string of liberal talking points. It’s at least the seventh anti-Bush letter from Mr. Finch since December 2004 and the second in eight days. I wish he could get a regular column in the Times.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“Sorry, but I have to disagree with Monday letter writer Nancy Hunter’s assertion that Bush ‘cares for life.’

[RWC] Oh no, I’m shocked!

“Her letter was an illogical Rush Limbaugh piece that did a questionable job of ‘examining the facts.’”

[RWC] Mr. Finch worrying about facts? If you’ve read his letters, you know Mr. Finch doesn’t let facts get in the way of a good rant.

“Trying to compare World War II and the policies of Democrat FDR with this ill-conceived fiasco in Iraq is an insult.

“The sneak attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of war that forced us into World War II, a war that was justified - regardless of the costs - to put a madman like Hitler out of business.”

[RWC] Using Mr. Finch’s logic, though, we should not have declared war on Germany until Hitler attacked us. We did not.

On a side note, I always get a kick out of how people tend refer to the attack on Pearl Harbor as a “sneak attack.” Unless the attacker screws up, all attacks are supposed to be sneak attacks. Does Mr. Finch think we sent telegrams to the Germans and Japanese telling them when our attacks were coming?

“Saddam Hussein was a two-bit despot with no real bite and no real connection to the perpetrators of Sept. 11, 2001. Bush went after him because his daddy didn’t.”

[RWC] This “two-bit despot” got his country into two wars within 10 years and got us and many other nations into Desert Storm. The “two-bit despot” was also pursuing a nuclear weapons program until the Israelis bombed the reactor. Lest we forget, at one time Hitler was also a “two-bit despot,” that is until appeasement eventually allowed him to become a full-blown despot.

“Our brave soldiers are being killed and maimed, while Halliburton and other Republican-backed war profiteers rake in millions. How’s that for pro-life?”

[RWC] “Halliburton?” Is it in the liberal style guide that you must mention Halliburton at least once per rant? <g>

Regarding “Republican-backed war profiteers,” are we to believe Democrats have no involvement in companies that supply the military?

“As for not allowing the cheaper prescription drugs from Canada; it’s not because W. cares about your life. It is to benefit the interests of the pharmaceutical and HMO providers, who profit from this administration’s cater-to-special-interest policies - then donate back to the GOP.”

[RWC] Nice theory, except all these guys also donate to Democrats.

“Vetoing the unproven hope of stem cell research was just a self-righteous publicity stunt, easy to do, as long as it’s not your dying kid who can be saved.”

[RWC] President Bush didn’t veto “the unproven hope of stem cell research.” Taxpayers continue to fund adult stem cell research. President Bush vetoed only federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Nothing stops private funding of embryonic stem cell research.

“Bush only cares about pro-life when votes are at stake. He publicly laments about ‘killed babies,’ but hasn’t done one thing (along with the Republican Congress) in six years to stop it. He put two of his own on the Supreme Court, so why smear Clinton about Ruth Bader Ginsburg?”

[RWC] Actually, there has been progress in this area. For example, remember the ban on partial-birth abortions? It’s also likely President Bush’s two Supreme Court appointees would not uphold Roe v. Wade.

Regarding Congress, there’s nothing it can do short of a constitutional amendment. Since Republicans don’t hold a greater than 2/3’s majority (not even close) in either House, an amendment would never pass because the vast majority of Democrats and a few pro-abortion Republicans – like Sen. Arlen Specter – would vote against it.

Why does Mr. Finch consider it smearing Bill Clinton by mentioning he appointed pro-abortion Justice Ginsburg?

“Claiming to be pro-life is meaningless when compared to six years of deceitful ineptitude, corruption, Constitutional abuse, wrecked economy, and arrogance in promoting an unjust war.”

[RWC] Another bunch of drive-by accusations with no supporting evidence.

“Supporting incompetent leadership isn’t patriotism; it’s stupidity.”

[RWC] Heaven knows any president can be criticized for his actions by just about everyone. When you can argue the issues, why do folks like Mr. Finch kill their credibility by jumping on name-calling?