The American Spectator

Reader Mail

In Recovery

10.4.04 @ 12:01AM

ALL TALK
Re: George Neumayr's Kerry's Global Warming, Wlady Pleszczynski's From Lambert to Treblinka, David Hogberg's His Own Worst Enemy, and John Tabin's Why Bush Won:

Mr. Neumayr writes, "[the Dafur discussion] revealed Kerry's view of the U.S. military as nothing more than a humanitarian errand boy for the United Nations." Just what in heck does Neumayr think Bush is doing with the U.S. military right now in Iraq? We won the invasion more than a year and a half ago. We got Saddam's sons last year and him last December -- why are we still there and why can't we defeat the insurgents!? Oh, because we're bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqis. And Bush keeps bragging about how we are building schools and hospitals and whatnot. How is that not humanitarian? I thought conservatives weren't supposed to be nation builders. I thought the U.S. military is for breaking stuff and blowing stuff up. Why couldn't we have just taken Saddam out, leave Iraq, and on our way out tell the Iraqis that they can kill each other or do whatever they want but if they threaten us or our interests again, we'll be back?

Why are we stuck there fighting house to house? … Because Bush lacks the moral courage and the backbone to do so, plain and simple. One thousand fifty men have lost their lives and thousands more have been severely wounded -- not because our enemy is a comparable one on the battle field, but because the commander in chief lacks the vision and courage to do the right thing. Bush is afraid of an uprising if we fight too hard, so he is NOT letting our troops fight as fiercely as they are capable of. Bush blinked twice in Fallujah and three times in Najaf. Bush's restraint over the past year has been nauseating, and he will not get my support this time. Yeah, so we decided to get a little tough today in Samarra. TOO LITTLE; TOO LATE. Kerry may be no better, but Bush does not deserve a second term.
-- unsigned

Thankfully George W. Bush wasn't caught looking at his watch, as happened to his father -- but I sure was! As a Bush supporter, it pains me to say that Kerry did, indeed, come off better last night. But thank you for pointing out the verbal gaffe Kerry made -- I didn't catch it -- but did catch the fact that Bush failed to mention Australia's John Howard as he singled out allies.

But consider -- Kerry thought it more important to have a manicure before the debate, while our President was off encouraging Florida hurricane victims.
-- Cathy Thorpe
Columbus, Georgia

Not only was it past his bedtime, but Bush had been out in the Florida sun visiting the disaster areas -- that is draining.
-- Alan Freemond Sr.

Jim Lehrer was President Bush's other debate opponent, through what Lehrer failed to ask John Kerry.

There was no question to Kerry about his 20-year Senate record of voting against defense appropriations and systems. Lehrer also did not ask the senator about his voting for cuts in intelligence funds, notably the $6 billion from the CIA. Nor did the PBS newsman ask Kerry about how it was that he opposed Ronald Reagan during the Cold War.

Nor did Lehrer take the opportunity to query Kerry about his law-enforcement approach to dealing with terrorists and why he thought that was superior -- especially in the face of Kerry's new-found hawkishness he displayed.

Finally, given that the French and Germans, days prior to the debate, said they would not be sending troops to Iraq, regardless of who's elected president, Lehrer could've asked Kerry specifically which coalition of nations he would seek to build.
-- C. Kenna Amos Jr.
Princeton, West Virginia

Sen. Kerry has finally presented his "plan" for Iraq. It consists of expanding the U.S. military and Special Ops forces but not using them anywhere. Calling a summit to convince more countries to become part of the "coalition of the coerced and the bribed" so they can join us in fighting the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time". Their role will apparently not be for achieving victory since that last time we depended on non-American allies - they screwed up in Tora Bora in the search for Bin Laden. Apparently they will join us solely to correct the imbalance of the U.S./Ally 90/10 casualty ratio.

That is not a "plan." That is a series of politically expedient positions created to offset a previously created series of politically expedient positions that had been necessary to offset an even earlier series of politically expedient positions.
-- Martin Tagliaferro
Ann Arbor, Michigan

I am writing to suggest from a great distance (as I live in Belgium) that perhaps a useful "nickname" for Senator Kerry and his policies would be "Senator Hindsight" (note not Heinzsight, though that might have a certain appropriateness too) -- because every suggestion he makes for policy whether internationally or domestically is done 'after someone else has made a serious decision' and acted upon it.

Hindsight is a great pleasure and is a gift which comes with leisure, but you can not run any organization on that basis. Anybody can be right with a hindsight of 20/20, but It is looking backwards and walking with 'one's back facing the future'. And that seems to be Senator Kerry's only method and approach to any topic -- and oft times even his hindsight glasses seem to be dirty since he changes his view frequently.
-- Philip J. Sandstrom

While there are many who are criticizing the President for what he didn't say in the debate, he is the clear winner because he is not being criticized for what he did say.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Education, Hillary Clinton, Television, Economics, Sports, Global Warming, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Russia, United Nations, NATO, North Korea, Nuclear Weapons, Oil