The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Sobriety Tests

3.6.03 @ 12:01AM

(Page 3 of 4)

However, I get the sense that he has been rather picked on lately by so-called "bully boys" and their mean-spirited ilk. I'm not going to defend him, nor should anyone feel compelled to defend such specious opinion and speculation. Tolerance, my foot!

John Corry has the right to say his piece; he said it; and now nobody's supposed to criticize what he said? Even if it's stupid? Even if the critic isn't a bully, but another intelligent conservative?

For Pete's sake, Editor, what was it that compelled you to run this below-average screed in your otherwise fine publication? A misguided sense of "fairness"? No, I think this is a blatant ploy to stuff this week's Reader Mail, and I cannot resist.

Finally, with regard to Gen. Shinseki: despite the fact that he's a military professional, he was also "wildly off the mark" with his black beret idea. He's allowed to have bad ideas, and we're allowed to criticize him for that too!
-- Mark Stoffel
Arlington, VA

Mr. Corry's article could have had a greater ability to convince had he not spent the first paragraph attempting to convince the reader that one shouldn't call him names due to the positions he holds, and thereafter using the derogatory term "bully boys" to describe those who disagree with him.

I would have though, based on his first paragraph, that he would think little of an article that tried to convince liberals to support the war by referring to those who oppose one as "Saddam lovers." Yet, his article did exactly that, but in reverse.
-- Matt Thullen

John Corry's piece is disgusting:

First, he despairs of the lack of "toleration" for dissent by conservatives -- and then he engages in juvenile name-calling ("bully boys"?). Apparently no one taught him that name-calling is evidence of intellectual exhaustion; perhaps what he mistakes for a lack of toleration of dissent is really nothing more than a lack of patience for stupidity -- perhaps if he came up with something thoughtful, it'd be taken seriously.

Which brings me to the second reason the piece is disgusting -- it is not serious, it's just one big whine. If Corry wants to make the case against action against Iraq because bad things might happen he's obliged to argue that other, less risky courses of action are available. Instead, all Corry has is the whine that all would be well if Saddam had been left alone -- that "because Saddam hasn't sold weapons to Al Quad yet, it follows that he never would." People hadn't plowed airplanes into buildings before September 11th, either, but it happened.

Given the absolute inability of inspections and/or embargoes to prevent Saddam from continuing his WMD program, on what are we to put our faith that leaving Saddam in power will insure none of his WMD are ever used against us by Saddam, either directly or through proxies? Is this -- "We can trust Saddam to continue denying Al Quad WMD" -- really the foundation on which Corry wishes to build our security? Yes, there is risk in taking action; there is also risk -- significant risk -- in doing nothing, which Corry fails to address in a serious manner.
-- Brad Bettin
Melbourne, Florida
P.S. If rejecting foolishness is a "lack of tolerance of dissent," then I plead guilty.

I too am concerned about we might be unleashing with too much unilateralism. But causing Islamic nations to hate the U.S. more? It's hardly possible to squeeze more hatred for us out of many such countries. The only thing the U.S. might do to make Islamic nations "like" us is to nuke Israel and save them the trouble.
-- John Earnest
Hoover, AL

My view is that when we move to free Iraq, we will find that Iraq has already provided Al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction and that they will be used on targets all over the world. We will be especially hard hit in the southern U.S. because of the eternal ease of moving massive amounts of material and unlimited personnel over our criminally porous southern border. But, the attacks after removing Saddam will be better than the same attacks later by a still-in-power Saddam who would use them, through terrorist organizations, for extortion. The first nuke would be for effect. What would we be willing to put on the table to avoid the second nuke, Kansas, Israel?

Certainly, the invasion of Iraq will have unintended consequences. Some of those I count include regime change in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the creation of the new state of Kurdistan, and, possibly, the removal of UN headquarters to a location far less palatable for the mistresses of the delegates of most third world countries.
-- unsigned

Mr. Corry, your analysis overlooks one thing (at least).

There is nothing to stop Saddam from spreading WMD to eager young terrorists now.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Foreign Policy, Bill Clinton, Business, Religion, Islam, Constitution, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, Conservatism, Nuclear Weapons, Oil