Wulf and Wolf: Letter from Greg Walden, annotated

I finally got a response to the letter I wrote to Greg Walden in January after a local protest against the troop escalation in Iraq. I basically told him that he should support a withdrawal date instead of a troop escalation. It's quite timely that he would respond to me right now, while Congress is talking about withdrawal.

Below, chunk by chunk, I have typed out the letter, verbatim, and my annotations:

Dear Patrick:

First, let me apologize for my late response and thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on the Iraq War with me. Every week I receive hundreds of letters, faxes, e-mails, and calls, and while sometimes I can't respond to them immediately, I want you to know that I value your comments and those of other Oregonians.

This much is understandable. Members of Congress are busy people.

Like most Americans, I look forward to the day when our brave men and women in uniform can return home.

Well, you say you do...

However, that return cannot occur without regard for the situation on the ground in Iraq or the needs of our commanders in the field. It is clear, however, that the Iraqis must be held accountable to do their part to secure their country and help stem the violence. We cannot do for them what they are unwilling to do for themselves.

We can't secure the country for the Iraqis unless they want to do it for themselves, you say. So why are we there in the first place? Are we shooting them until they feel compelled to sing Kumbaya?

It is also important to encourage more regional diplomatic efforts to help stop the flow of insurgents, weapons and explosive devices which fuel much of the violence in Iraq.

Where was this diplomacy before the insurgents, weapons, and explosive devices, and before the violence? Where was this diplomacy before we occupied Iraq? If you really cared about diplomacy, you would've spoken up earlier, when the time was prime for diplomacy.

Recently, Congress considered legislation that would provide the support and equipment that our troops need to continue their efforts. Both the House and Senate bills also contained language which set arbitrary withdrawal dates.

It's so terribly easy to say these withdrawal dates are "arbitrary." But one must wonder if you really believe that.

While our goal should be to finish the job so the troops can come home, I could not support setting an arbitrary date that ignores whatever the realities on the ground may be at the time.

Well gee, those "realities on the ground" wouldn't be so if we didn't go into Iraq in the first place.

I would note that even major newspapers, including the USA Today and the Washington Post, have strongly editorialized against the language. The Oregonian also dismissed the mandatory, but arbitrary, troop-withdrawal deadline, calling it "a great favor to the insurgents, terrorists and political opponents in Iraq to announce precisely when American troops would leave."

Your party's favorite rhetoric: We'd be aiding the terrorists if we withdrew.

Sadly for you, Iraq and the terrorists that attacked us in 2001 had nothing to do with each other. And if they do now, it's only because the president, you, and the rest of the Republican members of the Congresses in session since 2001 have been giving the Iraqis a reason to sympathize with the terrorists' cause, have effectively been giving the terrorists a support base in Iraq.

Sadly, sir, it is your party, not the Democratic Party, that is doing a favor for the miscellaneous terrorist organizations in the Middle East.

The Washington Post editorial board stated the "House Democrats are pressing a bill that has the endorsement of MoveOn.org but excludes the judgment of the U.S. commanders who would have to execute the retreat the bill mandates."

Funny. I was under the impression that the experts of the Iraq Study Group recommended a phased withdrawal. That silly bipartisan study group! Right?

Also, I thought the media was liberal. However could that damn liberal media have let conservative editorials slip by their grimy hands?

It would be nice if you gave me more information, such as in which issues these papers published these remarks, and whether they came from letters to the editors or from the editors themselves like you said about the Washington Post. That makes a huge difference. But maybe you didn't think I wanted to be overwhelmed with such irrelevant details. Or something.

While we work to help the Iraq [sic] government separate the fighting factions in Iraq and resolve other domestic political issues, America must listen more carefully to what the leaders of the Arab world are telling us will work.

Yes, we must. Why are we not doing that already?