The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Only Yesterday

9.5.06 @ 12:01AM

NEOCONSPIRACY!
Re: Jeffrey Lord's Ned Lamont Is No Clare Boothe Luce:

In other words, how dare anyone disagree with this phony "war on terror" that demands that we attack and occupy countries that had nothing to do with 9/11? How dare anyone question the infinite blank check handed to the President to make war on any country he chooses for any reason? In 1942, we went to war against a state (Japan) that explicitly attacked us. Victory was realized when that state surrendered. Who do we seek surrender from in the "war on terror"? Everybody and nobody. How do we know when we have won? We won't. Hence, the war goes on indefinitely. A "war on terror" is a war on a tactic (terror) that we and Israel as well as our enemies use at will. If we truly wish to make war on terror, then we should start bombing ourselves and Israel as well as our enemies. Obviously, it is not "terror" that motivates the pro-war crowd.

To make comparisons between WW II and the Iraq war is disingenuous. There is no comparison. The former war was fought in self-defense. The current war is a war of conquest and expropriation. How long must America be bled to satisfy PNAC's (Project For The New American Century) dream of world domination?

With Lamont, those of us who oppose the war in Connecticut now have a real choice this November, not a phony choice between pro-war Lieberman and some Republican nonentity.
-- Mike Stamper
Windsor, Connecticut

Fine piece, Mr. Lord. The "loyal opposition," in 2006, is certainly quite different. The Dems, fanatic worshipers of international communism, simply share a common purpose with the Muslim miscreants, fanatic worshipers of Sharia law, the destruction of the U.S. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, so to speak. I wonder what the Dems will do when the caliphate blows up the UN?

Indeed, we are a long way from 1942. I hope 2 months is time enough to get us there again.
-- Mike Showalter
Austin, Texas

Mr. Lord: You are exactly right -- we are a long way from 1942! It's absolutely terrible how the Dems have politicized this war on terror. Americans are in the fight for our lives, freedoms, & liberty. The Dems don't even see this -- amazing. Someday Americans as a whole will wake up -- but I hope it's not too late. To win this war on terror we must be united. Good article.
-- Kathy
Arizona

I found the most interesting quote in this illuminating article to be the final one, attributed to the New York Times: "(Goebbels') silence is proof of the fact that we have made the unity of our purpose apparent to our enemies."

It's breathtaking to contemplate a time when the Times considered itself to be interested in the unity of American national purpose in keeping fanatical enemies away...even more that the Times actually thought of itself as part of that unity.

Mr. Lord has provided another reason, as though any more were needed, for Americans to regard today's Times to be the pathetic, disoriented journal so many have watched it become.
-- D. A. Wells
Huntington, West Virginia

Your recent article by Jeffrey Lord compares the Republican loyal opposition of 1942 with the Democratic opposition of 2004, but does not examine the most interesting question about the 1942 elections.

Did Roosevelt urge the invasion of North Africa mostly to prevent the loss of 44 House seats in 1944? Most experts will confirm that the 1942 military campaign in Africa was badly conceived, badly executed, and served to prolong the war. The planning was amateurish, and its date had to be moved forward several times -- until it finally occurred after the U.S. elections, where it had no effect on them -- but that does not gainsay the fact FDR sent numerous nasty telegrams to the British urging them to hurry up.

Field Marshall Alan Brooke was Churchill's chief of staff, and the counterpart of Gen. George C. Marshall. Brooke's diaries mention the Roosevelt telegrams, and also give his opinion at the time that the North African adventure prolonged the war. He strongly insinuates it was Roosevelt's fault, owing to the proximity of U.S. elections. And Brooke was in a position to know what he was talking about.

This material was excised by Brooke from the first publication of the his Diaries in the 1950s. One must go to War Diaries 1939-1945, Field Marshal Lord Alan Brooke, edited by Alex Danchev and Daniel Todman, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London, 2001, to see the unexpurgated version, and it is well worth the trip. He also has some unvarnished things to say about Churchill, Eisenhower, Marshall, Patton and Mark Clark.
-- Larry Hughes
Calhoun County, Michigan

Your portrait of Republicans in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor is a nice fantasy, although I do believe Republican were more honest and ethical then than they are today.
-- Michael Roush

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Education, Trade, Bill Clinton, Mainstream Media, Abortion, Hollywood, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Africa, Communism