The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 3 of 14)

It isn't the great thinkers who give us freedom. And some of us said, when our children went to fight in a war far away, that it wasn't over till we took care of Iran. Even a rancher knows we couldn't fight Iran without taking the country next to it. Proximity is everything. And I am not a brilliant thinker but I am a mother whose children were nearly kidnapped by a terrorist group while we lived in a foreign country years ago. And even then I knew that someday when the terrorists attacked us here in the U.S. that we'd better hit back with such ferocity that we left fear in the hearts of those who struck out at us. Terrorists only understand terror...so give it back to them in such degree that fear is left deep within those who survive.

When the first talk was of al Qaeda most Americans knew the real enemy was radical Islam...wherever it resided. There is no reasoning with these kind of folks and certainly you don't give them anything and then expect them NOT to do something harmful. These radicals are like sociopaths without a guiding conscience, except they are willing to die for their goals. For the American soldiers fighting for our freedom to do as we choose, it is their opinions that count in this mother's heart, not that of well bred folks back in New England who live with elite notions.

p>So, it isn't over till it's over. Despite hearings yesterday and notions that it is taking too long to win and we should bring the soldiers home now, this will be a tough slog and will last many years. The election in the fall will determine people's will and whether we will ultimately lose. This war on terrorism is a war between two cultures, the culture of death and oppression and the culture of life and freedom. And that is about as erudite as this mother can be this early hour! br> -- Beverly Gunn , rancher and proud mother of someone serving br> East Texas /p>

The article you published by Neal Freeman "NR Goes to War" paints an inaccurate picture of the NR point of view. In explicitly saying that the U.S. did not make a solid case that Saddam had WMD based on intelligence, Neal is correct. The problem is that Neal implies that the U.S. did have intelligence suggesting that Saddam did not have WMD. This is false. After the Cold War U.S. intelligence capabilities were severely degraded -- especially human "men on the ground" intelligence.

Did the U.S. have solid intelligence that Saddam had WMDs? No.

Did the U.S. have solid intelligence that Saddam did not have WMDs? No.

This is because we did not have solid intelligence concerning the matter at all -- and this is what Neal conveniently obfuscates in his article and it paints a false picture.

In addition the tone of his article is really condescending and belittling of the NR folks. The NR people are cut from the same cloth the Spectator people are cut from and their causes align 90% of the time. To take a cheap shot at them like this is infuriating and you should be embarrassed you as an editor allowed this article to print without accurately representing their point of view -- indeed intentionally misrepresenting it. You should print another article explaining their case in an unbiased manner.

p>Finally -- all the circumstantial evidence points to Saddam having WMDs! (his brother-in-law defecting, their declared amounts of gas versus how much they said they destroyed, obstructing inspectors, etc.) br> --

topics:
Foreign Policy, Business, Earmarks, Islam, Environment, Hollywood, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Israel, NATO, Fascism, Conservatism, Immigration