The American Spectator

Reader Mail

p> THE RIGHT PRESCRIPTION br> Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s Their Sound and Their Fury : /p>

To add to Tyrrell's article on liberal hysteria...

Whether or not President Bush mentions Iraq in a major address is a non-issue that he cannot win anyway. The media and the liberal Democrats (isn't that redundant?) have already proven that. When Bush gave his second Inaugural address, in 2004, he never once mentioned Iraq. The talking heads were all atwitter!

"Why," they surmised, "it must be because it's going so badly, and the President doesn't want to draw attention to it."

Fast forward to Monday, September 11, 2006. Bush devotes roughly one-fifth of his national address to Iraq. Liberals in Congress and the media are shocked -- SHOCKED that he would dare politicize 9/11.

p>Suppose for a moment that he hadn't mentioned Iraq. Would this have brought unanimous praise from the liberals? Would this have so unified the country, that Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Katie Couric and Chris Matthews would have thrown down their arms, rallied to the president, and declared all of his sins (real and imagined) forgiven? Granted, we can only speculate, but I wouldn't bet on it. br> -- Greg Hoadley br> Deerfield Beach, Florida /p>

topics:
Education, Trade, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Business, Religion, Islam, Environment, Movies, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Russia, United Nations, Africa, Fascism, Nuclear Weapons, Oil