The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 6 of 9)

/p>

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.

p>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. br> -- Matt Thullen /p>

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.

p>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. br> -- Brad Bettin br> Melbourne, Florida br> P.S. If rejecting foolishness is a "lack of tolerance of dissent," then I plead guilty. /p>

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