The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Here We Go Again

9.5.03 @ 12:01AM

TAKING OFFENSE
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s John Pierre Kerry's Offensive Diatribe:

I just read your essay "John Pierre Kerry's Offensive Diatribe." Given how the invasion of Iraq has turned out, it seems a pity you did not respond to the Senator's statements with a bit more regard to the reality of the situation. The fact that the president puts the American military in harm's way does not absolve American citizens from evaluating the wisdom of this action and voicing their concerns. Your Roosevelt analogy was particularly offensive, given that America was engaged in fighting those who actually attacked us (We did not respond to Pearl Harbor by attacking Denmark). As for President Reagan, his calm confidence in policy decisions in the face of opposition can only be vindicated in hindsight. We're not there yet.

Referring to the Iraq invasion as "a war made inescapable by the attacks of September 11" appears to reveal some delusional transference of responsibility that simply does not square with the facts. Actions based on grand fantasies rather than how the world really is are bound to have disastrous consequences no matter how fervent one's resolve. It's not to late to take an "eyes-open" look at the Iraq situation and come to some realistic conclusions that don't leave you in that "what were we thinking ?" mode too late in the game.
-- L. Rotunno

I would say the only thing "offensive" is comparing FDR to the bewildered man-child that "occupies" the White House. This post 9/11 "flag-waving" and "rallying around the President" no matter what your opinion is also horribly "offensive." In reference to "exploiting the normal anxieties that exist in time of war," this is nothing more than this President has done, maintaining a perpetual state of "war" so that we can all be distracted from his failure and irresponsibility at home. This system of "orange" and "yellow" alerts always seem to come in conjunction with more news of jobs lost, and record deficits. Furthermore, the "liberal media" has given this President a free ride, possibly fearful of what would happen if he was actually required to field unscripted, and pointed questions. Who knows maybe that is a bonus of the Patriot Act, the effect of its ever-present intimidation dormant since J. Edgar Hoover's time. The "nags and faultfinders" Tyrrell is nagging about and finding fault with are true Americans. It is our duty to challenge our Government and hold them accountable as they represent us. As you must know, America was founded on dissent, and in my view, the more the better. Lord knows President Clinton was not spared any dissent from the "nags and faultfinders."

Finally, the "French spin" on Kerry's name is further evidence of the conservative right wing's immaturity and lack of class. The French had their feelings and opinions when it came to Iraq, as did the German, Russians, and, oh yes, Americans and British. Truth be known, this was a conflict between the Bush Administration (and inexplicably, the Blair administration) against Hussein's regime. American polls were split about 50/50, and England's majority opposed it. Now, we are sold polls that show people feel that it is better Hussein is gone, and the "War" was worth fighting. Personally, although the world is better off without Hussein in power, the ends, never have, and never will justify the means. After all, remember that polls showed that a majority of Europeans and a large percentage of Americans feel that Bush is more of a threat to world peace than Hussein.
-- A.L.

Just as Abraham Lincoln had to endure the machinations of defeatists and enemy sympathizers such as Rep. Clement Valandingham and his fellow "Copperheads" during the Civil War, President Bush must now endure the girlish slaps of the "Seven Dwarves" led by the erstwhile war hero and Wanna-be Ketchup Baron Senator John "Call Me a Frog" Kerry. Kerry wants very badly to be President, so badly, in fact, that everything he says and does in front of the news cameras is calculated to achieve that end. The sad fact that Senator Kerry does not posses even a shred of honor (or common sense) becomes all too obvious when one traces his initial support for the war with Iraq to his present attempts to undermine the war effort while slithering into the White House.

Using Senator Kerry's "logic," one is forced to conclude that Saddam Hussein and his minions were actually philanthropists and do-gooders while President Bush is the very embodiment of Machiavellian evil. According to Senator Kerry, Saddam Hussein is worthy of the title of "victim." While there are many in academia, the media, France, and the Democratic Party ready and willing to swallow this supposition, the facts do not support the premise. Senator Kerry knows this, but he, like the late Dr. Goebbels and those who work for CNN, also knows that if a lie is repeated often enough and loudly enough it will become "true."

With people like Senator Kerry and the rest of the "Seven Dwarves" this nation can consider itself well supplied with enemy sympathizers. They certainly fit the "profile."

Thank You,
-- Tillman L. Jeffrey
Manteca, CA

Regarding candidate Kerry's "announcement" next to the USS Yorktown recently, it should be noted that the original Yorktown (actually, the second one, circa WW II, the third one is that which was used as a backdrop in South Carolina) was hit repeatedly by the Japanese forces during the battle of Midway, and in spite of the best efforts of her crew to save her, had to be sunk by the US Navy itself as it was not able to even be towed to port. A war hero, legend, a valiant ship and crew but, nonetheless, an appropriate metaphor for this Democratic aspirant.
-- Aaron Johnston
Frisco, TX

JELLY MOMS
Re: Dariel A. Colella's Losing at Singles and her reply to Michael E. Young's letter ("Winning at Doubles") in Reader Mail's Back to School With Ben:

It's ironic that Dariel A. Colella would make the remark that many men who "cannot get past their anger and fail to realize that helping the mother also helps their children."

Indeed! Consider how the court system does its best to make those fathers angry and even take away their employment and then complains when fathers no longer work 80 hour weeks to support their offspring. I'm reminded of the joke "the beatings will continue until morale improves." When the courts stop allowing children to be exploited as financial pawns, then maybe they won't be caught in the middle anymore.

Quite simply: Giving the child to the parent best financially able to take care of it is in the best interests of the child. Period. Sure, maybe the father won't be able to make peanut butter sandwiches as well as mom, but then again, many career women no longer do these things anyway and the DMV won't need to have us all give fingerprints to track and make the disgruntled parent pay up.

Just a suggestion.
-- Mark Sobolewski
Saint Louis, MO

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Trade, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, Iran, Russia, NATO