The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Withdrawal Symptoms

6.12.06 @ 12:01AM

BUSINESS AS USUAL
Re: Andrew Cline's Withdrawn Democrats:

Thank you, Mr. Cline, for exposing the vulgar behavior by "withdrawn Democrats."

No, there was no rejoicing in Mudville, Vermont nor in the minds of rabid, leftist quislings concerning the just demise of Zarqawi. We have come to the conclusion that these anti- and un-Americans hold no pathways to be comprehended. They are so filled with pathological hate that rational, synoptic coherency -- even hard cold reality -- has no ameliorating impact on their very, very sick thought processes. Therefore, why make any attempt to engage them in any substantive discussion of issues? Their value lies in their revolting utterances and behavior which simultaneously alienate, yet motivate real American values in support of our troops and in our democratic processes.
-- William J. Bean, M.D., Ph.D.

Andrew Cline's editorial on June 9 about the muffled response of Democrats to the killing of the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was dead-on. Nationwide, the response of Democrats to this major victory in the war on terror has been muted at best. Can what many suspect actually be true, that these blue-staters do not want to see anything happen in Iraq that might appear encouraging for the cause of democracy there, simply because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom, and would rather see Iraq devolve into another Somalia than see anything happen there that might improve Bush's poll numbers? I more than suspect it's so. Our daily newspaper here in Spokane, the Spokesman-Review(a paper solidly in the Democrat camp), carried a front-page headline on the very morning after al-Zarqawi's death was announced: ZARQAWI'S DEATH UNLIKELY TO SLOW VIOLENCE, EXPERTS SAY. I didn't stick around long enough to find out who these "experts" were, but I have a pretty good idea what their ideological interest probably is. The Democrats didn't wait until Zarqawi's body was cold before jumping in on all sides, trying to put negative "spin" on the story, trying to sell the idea that it was either a dubious victory or no victory at all.

I think it's true: these people hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom. How ironic that they're calling anyone who disagrees with them "fascist" and "mean-spirited." For sheer hate-choked venom, the left-wing blogs these days are outdoing the Voelkischer Beobachter, the flagship newspaper of Hitler's Nazi party.
-- Kelley Dupuis
Spokane, Washington

Three years of war, thousands of dead U.S. troops, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and now we've got one dead al Qaeda guy and suddenly this is a whooping success? I honestly can't believe anyone with integrity can support this or any pre-emptive war. So while your views are of no real merit to me, I still feel obligated to exercise my freedom of speech while I'm still privy to it.

I'd like to point out that we lost this war at the same time we lost our dignity, at the beginning of it. It's a disgusting act of imperial might and desperate attempt to clench global domination.

You and your journalistic peers hold the future of this world firmly in your hands and yet you squander this power with senseless reporting of futile information. I strongly urge you to consider the possibilities of corruption amidst our own government and use your craft to disseminate the truth of this war to the American people so they can make an honest and fair appraisement of our current and future leadership no matter what side of the political landscape they might reside.

Thank you,
-- Jason Pebworth

Some thoughts on Andrew Cline's article:

I had always thought there were two categories of the anti-Iraq War folks: legitimate criticism (a la Pat Buchanan and the more reasonable Democrats), and treasonous comments (everybody else).

After reading the comments from the non-politicos in Cline's article, I'm convinced that we need to add a third category: the outright delusional. It's not enough to say that these folks are treasonous, because that would require a certain degree of rational thought. As long as these guys have a say in Democratic Party policy (via Daily Kos and other far-left websites), the Democrats are doomed to perpetual minority status.

The elected Democrats Cline quoted seem to realize this. Their statements were very tempered: no jubilation that the face of our enemy in Iraq is dead, yet little in the way of outright criticism of Bush, since this is a big moment. Also, just more of the same tired "Let's bring the troops home now even if it makes a bigger mess of Iraq because it's all Bush's fault anyway."

Suppose for a moment that we do bring home our troops in 2006. What then? Radical Muslims will destroy all of the hard work put in by our soldiers, including the hospitals, schools and housing that many of them have had a hand in creating (not that you've heard about any of this from CNN or the New York Times), and, of course, the fledgling democracy. Even worse, a bloody civil war will likely follow.

Who will Democrats blame then? George Bush, of course. Just as many Democrats voiced agreement that Saddam Hussein had to be removed back in 2002, now they are criticizing Bush for following through. Why wouldn't they criticize him even more for the crime of following their advice again? Ah, yes, it's great to be in the minority, and not have to be responsible for one's words and actions.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Business, Constitution, Law, Military, Iraq, Russia, NATO, Immigration, Energy, Oil