The American Spectator

/p>

Jed Babbin replies: Mr. Wyman makes a great point, and I hope it will not be lost on the President. Bush 41 was far too concerned about keeping a coalition together in the fight against Iraq. Bush 43 realizes, I think, that the price of Saudi cooperation is far too high, and the support we would get valueless. We don’t need, and really shouldn’t want, the support of any coalition (except one made up of us, the Brits and the Turks) in the coming fight. For the Saudis to deny us permission to use bases in their country, to treat our people as they do, and for us to let them continue is simply unacceptable. TR was — and Mr. Wyman is — right on the mark. We need to fight according to our conscience and our beliefs. The more we compromise them, the less likely we will win.

p> EARNINGS br> Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell’s Ordinary Heroes : /p>

I recently retired from the Air Force Special Operations Command and I enjoy reading the Prowler everyday at work. I particularly was moved by your “Ordinary Heroes” tribute to the two Medal of Honor Recipients who passed away on June 11.

I would like to correct a minor, yet significant, tendency that I commonly observe in the civilian press. The practice of referring to these men as Medal of Honor “winners” does not do justice to the actual events. “Winner” implies some sort of competitive game or a game of chance, like playing Bingo or buying a lottery ticket. It also implies a zero sum event (when there are Medal of Honor winners, there must also be Medal of Honor losers in our midst).

These men did not perform these heroic acts to “win” anything, they “earned” it. Again, people “win” at Bingo, but they “earn” the Medal of Honor. They were simply common folks who were doing their duty, as you so effectively pointed out in your article.

The proper way to refer to these heroes is “Medal of Honor Recipient.” Or, Mr. John Doe was “awarded” the Medal of Honor. Throughout my military career I have been to several professional educational symposiums that some of these men frequent. Some shudder when a member of the audience uses the term “won” or “winner” during the question and answer period. They would usually politely correct the questioner.

p>Thanks again for the superb article. br> — Alan H. Vafides , Lt. Col., USAF (ret) /p> p> R. Emmett Tyrrell repeatedly refers to men who have “won” the Congressional Medal of Honor. This does not sound right. Isn’t the medal earned by heroic actions and awarded by Congress? People win contests, not recognition for bravery of the highest order. br> — unsigned /p> p> WATERGATE AS PRANK br> Re: Editorial note Watergate City : /p> p>The lion’s share of the pundit parade bordered on the meretricious. I thought perhaps Ms. Drew was trying to draw a teardrop from yours truly, as she recounted having to re-read her journal that she kept daily during the Watergate interregnum. The torching of the media was performed, at Forrest Sawyer’s expense, by Mr. Buchanan, who finished with panache thusly: that Watergate was the moral equivalent of a couple of college students breaking into a professor’s office and stealing the final exams. br> — Edward Del Colle /p>