The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 4 of 14)

Patrick Brown /p> p> I would like to add one legitimate reason for invading Iraq put forth by President Bush following 9/11. Harboring terrorists, and sponsoring terrorism. The President said quite simply that there would be no distinction between the terrorists, and the country, or countries that harbor them. Iraq was quite legitmately a terrorist haven, and therefore quite legitimately a target for the full force of the U.S. military. Those looking to politicize the war point not only to the fact that no caches of WMD were found, they also look to disassociate Iraq from the war on terror, by suggesting disingenuously that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. br> -- Dennis Genetski /p>

Mr. Freeman strikes me as a constructive critic with a benevolent purpose (aside from some childishness here and there), in stark contrast to the way leftists behave, even among themselves (i.e., toward Lieberman).

If his basic claim is that his colleagues shot their arrow first, then engaged in painting a bull's-eye around it (and brushed out Mr. Novak in the process), fine. But are any of those four points really in his favor? Two can be disputed outright; the other two, on the validity of the premises behind them. Perhaps Mr. Freeman has his own arrows to shoot and his own can of paint, and does not see it.

p>What Mr. Freeman seems utterly unable to see are the larger philosophical principles that made war against Saddam Hussein a reasonable proposition (so long as it's not the last step). Since he said with some pride that he helped rid National Review of "Randians," there is one clue as to why. br> -- Scott Clarke br> Florence, Oregon /p>

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