The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Count Hillary

3.2.06 @ 12:01AM

(Page 4 of 4)

Unfortunately for President Bush he lives in far different times than his illustrious predecessors. President Lincoln ignored the Constitution and locked up or muzzled his enemies (particularly the press) and the Republicans despite loathing the arrogant Roosevelt were committed to U.S. victory. The same cannot be said for today's media, ACLU or the majority of Democrat politicians and activists. For them winning is not defeating our enemies, but regaining political power and returning America to its pre 9/11 delusion of security. That is until major American city's glow.

As a member of the active duty military (deployed for both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom) it pains me to say this about my country, but sometimes the truth hurts.

Immediately after 9/11, based on my study of U.S. military history, I predicted we had four years to deal with our enemies. If President Bush "failed" it was then. As unrealistic as it may sound we should have immediately bombed in the Bekka valley into dust (something Reagan should have done after the murder of our Marines), deposed the Taliban (as we did), and then turned out attentions on Iraq (a military success), Iran and Syria before the end of 2002 while America's bloodlust was up and the Democrats with their hacks in the media were still afraid to show the yellow stripe running down their backs.

The war in Iraq is not lost -- far from it, but video America needs to grow up and realize quick solutions for real problems are only solved instantaneously in movies and not real life. Personally, Buckley and the armchair strategist's defeatism is proof of my theory. The danger is if they are "prophetic" we not only lose in Iraq, but the entire Global War on Terror. Our enemy understands Giap was right, despite our tough guy rhetoric; Home Simpson America lacks resolve and staying power when it comes to a fight. They don't.

President Eisenhower was right, "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." I pray we are not the generation who ushers in the fall of not only the U.S., but Western democracy.
-- Michael Tomlinson
Crownsville, Maryland

Usually love your columns but the latest has me scratching my head. Particularly this exchange in Reader Mail.

"President doesn't understand the information war"? Why are we not racially profiling Arabs if he doesn't understand the information war? Why are we bending over backward to make friends of all kind of persons and factions in the Middle East? Seems to me that the President and his administration are pretty nimbly exploiting all the divisions of our enemies in Iraq and elsewhere. Sure they had a rocky beginning, but I don't think it was as rocky as our first efforts in WWII. I'm sure you're well aware of what happened in Morocco, and why we invaded there after we were attacked by the Japanese.

Lastly, I think the President is trying to get the message out, I've heard it a number of times: Long difficult conflict, dedicated and patient adversaries, will be won when their societies offer hope, freedom and equality to all. Might take a while since we're on that path ourselves. But I can't think of a worthier fight, can you?
-- Rick Lockwood
Gainesville, Florida

Jed Babbin replies:
Dear Mr. Tomlinson: Exceptionally well said. But I think we credit Americans too little. They can sustain a war effort if their leaders can. It saddens me greatly to say this, but the problems we have now are much exaggerated by the President's lack of attention.

Dear Mr. Lockwood: You, like the President, are confusing diplomacy with the ideological war. We won the Cold War in part because people such as Reagan and Thatcher were constantly holding the oppressions and failures of communism up to the light for all to see. We need to be doing the same for radical Islamists to see how their ideology brings only failure, poverty, oppression and death to its adherents. That's the fight we're not in, yet.

YOU AND YOUR "GOD"
Re: Mark Gauvreau Judge's The Literary Counter-Reformation:

I think it's irrational to hate Jesus. It just doesn't make sense to hate a fictional character. And your strong feelings for a traditional Catholicism reveals only your dedication to a current version of a religion which has evolved considerably over the years. Have you ever stopped to consider whether there really is a god? And if you think there is one, have you considered how much evidence there is on what he is like and what he wants and how you know this? And how can you take the Bible as authoritative when it was written and rewritten by so many anonymous people and contains so many contradictions and errors? What did these writers know that you and I don't know?

If the Christian religion is true, then why does the theory of evolution neatly account for the development of species without the slightest assistance from the supernatural? And why can't scientists find evidence of the existence of a soul? And why does Christianity seem to borrow all of its beliefs from other religions?

It seems to me that you are being ridiculous in getting all huffy about other people's religious beliefs -- unless you can rationally explain why yours are better than theirs.

I'll bet you can't do it.
-- Steve Beck

SHOOT FIRST
Re: Brandon Crocker's Self-Appointed Clowns:

This has always been a problem with Americans, a knee jerk reaction to something before they know anything about it. This plays into the hands of politicians who are poised to take personal advantage no matter the damage that is done to the friendly relationships we have in the Middle East.
-- unsigned

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Education, Business, Religion, Catholicism, Islam, Abortion, Movies, Constitution, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Israel, NATO, Communism, Unions