The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Peace Disturbances

9.15.06 @ 12:01AM

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

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.

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.
-- Greg Hoadley
Deerfield Beach, Florida

This article hit the nail right on the head. Liberals don't feel comfortable being civil or conventional. Freedom of the press means always dissenting no matter what.

In your last paragraph you mention congenital alienation. That's it! They can't stand to go along.
-- Tom Masles
Alamo, California

The good doctor is again at his perspicuous best in describing the liberals' alienation from the difficult battles, moral, spiritual, and military, we fight today. They are essentially embarrassed to be on the side of conventional and virtuous America. More than that though, liberals behave as they do for the simple reason that it's easy. Yes, it's easy to criticize people who are willing to fight for things that they won't fight for. It's easy to placate a bully rather than to confront him and ultimately fight him. It's easy to bribe some entity as rather than to oppose and defeat him. It's easy to buy one's way out of difficulty and it's even easier to do the buying with someone else's money. In short: it's easy to avoid and avoid and avoid. Less wear and tear on the organism and all that. Trouble is: the time comes when you finally come up against the unbribable, and you discover you no longer have any fight within you.
-- J. C. Eaton

In your above-referenced article you characterized our adversaries as "Islamofascists." That description is a contradiction in terms. Islam has nothing to do with Fascism.

Fascism was an exclusive, secular, authoritarian and racist (not necessarily anti-Semitic) system. Islam, whatever its faults, is decidedly inclusive, and certainly not racist, everyone must submit to Allah (the merciful and compassionate), at the point of a sword if need be and though it is religiously authoritarian (as any religion must be), it certainly is not in political terms.

We are not fighting Fascists; we fought them, wiped the floor with them and hung them up to dry. Our mortal enemy is Jihadistan and they mean to win.

Are they winning? Well, just try to board an airplane or enter a Federal building and the question answers itself. As for term "Fascists," a word once fully understood with which men could agree or disagree with, it has become a meaningless and vulgar term of abuse.

Gresham's Law applies to words as well.
-- E. David Litvak

"It stems from the liberals' only unwavering political value, the political value that now stands alone at the heart of liberalism. That value is...disturbance of the peace."

Letter to the Editor

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