It starts out by noting there were 39 combat-related killings in Iraq in January, compared to 35 murders in Detroit during the same month, and "that's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq."
It's a theme that has been stated in various versions on Fox, talk radio, conservative blogs and other media trying to quiet the continuing discontent toward the war.
Sometimes, the city being compared is New York, or Los Angeles, or Miami, but it's always a city containing several million people. The analogists never point out they are comparing a G.I. population of about 150,000 to a population of millions.
But even if you ignore that flaw in the logic, what does the murder rate in Detroit have to do with the wisdom of attacking Iraq in the way we did? It's an attempt to deflect attention from issues that should be discussed among serious people.
The e-mail goes on to instruct, "When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:
l "FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us, Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year." (Actually, Germany declared war on us.)
l "Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
l "John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
l "Clinton went to war in Bosnia without U.N. or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions."
Other talking points suggested by the e-mail:
l "It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation." (Actually, we've been in Iraq for two-and-a-half years now with no end in sight.)
l "We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
l "It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
l "It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida.
l "Our Commander-in-Chief is doing a great job. The military morale is high. The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize."
So the point here is that nobody has the right to question our involvement in Iraq because Ted Kennedy drove off a bridge at Chappaquiddick in 1969.
Note that all the past sins that are given to us here to make comparisons to Bush were committed by Democrats. It doesn't mention the Great Depression that befell the country after nearly a decade of Republican rule or the massive savings and loan crisis that occurred on Ronald Reagan's watch. It doesn't mention that Nixon continued the Vietnam War for four more years after Johnson and that Ford actually lost the war to North Vietnam. And it ignores the fact that the three worst corruption scandals in U.S. history - the gold and patronage scandals of the 1870s, the Teapot Dome scandal and Watergate - were hatched by Republican administrations, Grant, Harding and Nixon, respectively.
But none of that has anything to do with the current policy in Iraq, the record deficits run up by this administration or the role that He Who Shall Not Be Named played in revealing the identity of a covert CIA operative, an act the current president's father, George H.W. Bush, once described as treasonous.
If this were just the ranting of one person on the Internet, it wouldn't merit a response. But it's more than that. You get variations of this faulty analysis every day on Fox, all over the AM radio, magazines and newspapers controlled by a certain faction of the Republican Party.
The danger is that this is what has been shaping public opinion for the past several years and the message is that if anyone criticizes anything about the current administration, they should be dismissed as a "liberal" (substitute pedophile, sodomizer, terrorist). Whatever argument that can be made will not be heard.
The likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have divided the country and demonized anyone who does not think exactly like them. But at least they do it publicly. He Who Shall Not Be Named has done it in a more sinister fashion.
