John A. Lovra – 10/6/04

This page was last updated on October 6, 2004.

Writer was way off base; John A. Lovra; Beaver County Times; October 6, 2004.

Mr. Lovra is getting busier. This is his fourth Bush-bashing letter since September 30^th. Mr. Lovra is the second writer in two days to come to the defense of Mr. Kislock. It’s too bad these folks can’t see the enemies of our country as clearly as they see opposition to their political cause.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“It was very interesting to read the letter from Peter Homitz Sr. (‘I know where Bush stands,’ Sept. 28).

“What made it such an interesting letter were, first, his condescending attitude toward other letter writers and, second, the inconsistencies in his statements.

“He claims to have been following the news very carefully. If he had been, he would know that by using Mr. Bush’s 3,000 reasons to invade Iraq, he is perpetuating a lie. The Sept. 11 Commission appointed by President Bush proved that Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist organizations or with those who attacked the World Trade Center.”

[RWC] Perhaps Mr. Lovra should get his facts straight before he lectures someone else. The 9/11 Commission is an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President Bush. President Bush did not appoint the 9/11 Commission. President Bush appointed the chairman and the Democrat House and Senate Minority or Majority Leaders appointed the vice chairman. Democrat and Republican leadership in the House and Senate each appointed four members for a total of 10.

Sorry, Mr. Lovra, the 9/11 Commission report did report there were links between Iraq and al-Qaida and terrorists in general. So did the “Report on the U.S Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq” and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; see Bush should repent for his lies.

It’s been covered a zillion times, but the Bush administration never claimed a link between Iraq and al-Qaida with respect to 9/11.

Finally, would Mr. Lovra have us believe al-Qaida was everywhere – including south Florida where the 9/11 terrorists lived – except Iraq?

“Later in his letter, he questioned a statement made by letter writer Stephen Kislock III - ‘I am against this demagogue’ - using as his argument that a demagogue is ‘any popular leader or orator.’

“If you look in Webster’s American Dictionary, you find the definition that Mr. Kislock probably meant, ‘one who stirs up people’s emotions in order to accomplish selfish ends.’

[RWC] Perhaps Mr. Kislock should have been clearer.

“A perfect example of this would be Vice President Dick Cheney’s statement that a vote for anyone other than the president would increase the possibility of more attacks on American soil.”

[RWC] Did you wonder why Mr. Lovra didn’t provide us with VP Cheney’s actual statement? Here is his full response to a question Cheney received at a town hall meeting on Labor Day.

“If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again -- that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States. And then we’ll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we’re not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.”

As many other members of the “anyone but Bush crowd,” Mr. Lovra carved out part of Cheney’s answer to make it sound like Cheney said, “Elect Kerry and we’ll be attacked.” That is clearly not what Cheney meant when you read the whole response. Here is what Cheney was trying to say. Someday, we’ll get hit again – regardless of who is in office – and it would be a terrible mistake to revert to the law enforcement approach to terrorism that was prevalent prior to 9/11. Granted, Cheney could have worded his response better, but remember this was an impromptu response to a question, not a prepared statement.

“As for his quote of Abraham Lincoln - ‘Don’t change horses in mid-stream.’ - he needs to study Civil War history a little more. If he had, he would know that Lincoln had so much trouble finding good leaders that he changed generals almost as much as he changed his socks.

“As he closes his letter, Mr. Homitz laments the lack of sapient, or wise letter writers. After reading his letter, I can only assume that he is still searching.”

[RWC] After dissecting Mr. Lovra’s letter, I’m sure Mr. Homitz is still searching.