The American Spectator

Reader Mail

War's Regress

2.28.06 @ 12:01AM

LOSING HEART
Re: Jed Babbin's Have We Lost in Iraq?:

President Bush is not leading us anywhere. You are correct when you say that President Bush is "not engaged." I'm not sure he ever was ever engaged. I never bought the line that Karl Rove was the genius behind Mr. Bush's election as President. Mr. Bush is President today because the Democrats offered us Mr. Gore and Mr. Kerry. Their activities after their defeats clearly show they would have been worse Presidents than Mr. Bush.

Mr. Bush lost all of my confidence when he nominated Ms. Miers to the SCOTUS. Clearly a very dumb mistake. The failure of the White House to support border control, limit federal spending and be a clear leader in matters of constitutional law are signs of continuing weakness. The wolves are at the door and our President is hiding in a straw house built on patriotism.

The "left" is gaining ground. The weaknesses of the White House and Congress have opened a window of opportunity allowing communists and socialists to move more rapidly toward their goals. President Bush, like Tsar Nicholas II in Russia, is oblivious to the undercurrents of political movement in the U.S. Health care and Social Security will be the drivers of the 2008 election, not Iraq or Iran. (Unless we go to war with Iran over a nuclear bomb, in which case all bets are off.) Russia lost their war with Japan in 1905 and we will, ultimately, lose our war in the Middle East. We cannot afford the spending that will soon be necessary within our borders and also pay for a long-term war of attrition with Islamofascism.

The parallels between Russia (and Nicholas II) in the early 1900s and the U.S. (and President Bush) today are clear. Those who do not read and understand history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
-- Nelson Ward
Ribera, New Mexico

I find it most unpleasant disagreeing with Jed, but his hand-wringing panic piece is unworthy of his usual somber judgment. Jed has joined the chorus of elite naysayers over Iraq because a handful of fanatics have managed to score an apparent victory. Instead of seeing the destruction of this sacred shrine, which has withstood 1,200 years of sectarian violence, as a despicable desperate act perpetrated by a remnant of hardcore death eaters, Jed instead sees a failure by Bush. So much so, that it manages to taint our entire noble enterprise of Iraqi and Middle East freedom.

Despite three elections and the fact that civil war has not erupted, because the Iraqis have a new found freedom worth saving (a point Jed glibly glosses over), nonetheless, all is lost because Bush has not defined the mission. Jed offers no proof for this assertion other than the fact that the NYT says so. I for one don't think that the mission is adrift, contrary to Jed's panic attack. And since when did the NYT, CBS or the rest of the MSM ever not attempt to portray our actions in Iraq as anything other than a failure? This is not new, but to Jed, because of a mosque bombing, Bush has managed single-handedly to lose the moral high ground to the Alec Baldwins of the loony left.

Well, Jed, all I can say is that the MSM has never defined the mission for me, ever; and I don't intend to let them start now. That's why I read TAS everyday. Even if civil war does become a reality, albeit a brief one, peace will be restored and Saddam will never return to power, ever. So, if you want to fall in with the all is lost crowd, well that's your problem. Just don't try and make it ours.
-- A. DiPentima

It looks as if President Bush has basically gone to sleep, just as his father did after the first Iraqi war. He is acting like no more than a caretaker now, ignoring his political base, or even insulting it.

Also, as long as Syria and Iran can keep interfering in Iraq, we are not going to win. No one wants a larger war, but leaving the enemy a North Vietnam sanctuary means we can't really win. We will just sit there as our troops did in South Vietnam, waiting for whatever the enemy will throw at us. Are we supposed to outlast Assad and the Ayatollahs, as we were supposed to outlast Hanoi?

This administration won't even use political means -- not even symbolic means -- to pressure or weaken these regimes. Perhaps Bush is too busy threatening his first veto ever over the UAE contract, or trying to come up with another illegal immigrant amnesty that no one but his rich business friends and liberal enemies want -- dressed up as a "work program," of course.

Or maybe he's too buy creating even more "affirmative action" quota programs in the federal service.

I think Bush has blown his chance to be a great president. But he could still go down in history as a good one, if he will just wake up, and just end the common GOP practice of slapping its supporters in the face, in a futile effort to win support among people who hate him.
-- John Lockwood
Washington, D.C.

None of your suggestions are going to have any impact on Iraq. How does declaring the Palestinian Government a terrorist organization help us in Iraq? If anything it hurts us. As does some silly dinner date with the Danish PM. And I'm sure Zarqawi will immediately cease hostilities once that Security Resolution is blocked by China and Russia.

Forget Buckley. He was against Iraq from the start. This is the second decade in a hundred years war. There are going to be darker days than this in the future.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Health Care, Business, Social Security, Religion, Islam, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, Iran, Russia, NATO, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Immigration