The American Spectator

Reader Mail

A Party of Begalas

10.4.06 @ 12:01AM

CUT OUTS
Re: Jeffrey Lord's Democrats Identify the Enemy:

Mr. Begala said. "We're really tired of being bullied by Fox.''

Shouldn't that be: "We're really tired of being confronted with some of the truth by Fox"?
-- Reid Bogie
Waterbury, Connecticut

There's a sentiment which underlies the "cut and run'" mentality Mr. Lord so ably identified:

Modern Democrats seek to "cut and run" because, ultimately, they don't believe the United States is worthy of being "first." They do not believe we're a force for good in the world and they would just as soon see our role diminish, with the result that they oppose any U.S. policy which, in their view, has a whiff of "self-interest" to it.

It's also why they're in love with the United Nations and with thugs like Chavez (Jimmy Carter, call your office...) -- anything that takes us down a few notches (especially when there's a Republican President) is all good.
-- Bradly Roger Bettin, Sr.
Cocoa, Florida

An old adage says that even a blind squirrel will sometimes find an acorn. But when it comes to issues related to identifying enemies of the United States, Democrats apparently defy probability. Jeffrey Lord's analysis of those who speak for the party neatly illustrates this. What reason can be proffered for these phenomena? These people hate George Bush to such a degree and so intensely that it clouds their judgment and prevents them from seeing what is obvious to the rest of us. They are so desperate to regain power they appear to be willing to jeopardize the security of our nation in order to procure sufficient votes to win control of Congress. According to the twisted view of some of them, the actions of terrorists bent on our total annihilation are morally equivalent to those of our nation and its attempts to protect itself from this menace. Meanwhile, they offer no alternative other than cut and run.

The American people are tired of their shrill denunciations and endless complaining. Until Democrats articulate a comprehensive and reasonable alternative to the Bush administration's prosecution of this war, the majority will pay no attention to them. As long as they persist in minimizing the imminent threat posed by Islamic terrorism and cling to their naïve notion that these groups can somehow be placated through negotiation or appeasement, most Americans will continue to prefer Republican leadership. Most Americans recognize cowardice and self-serving opportunism for what it is and are repulsed by it. Hopefully, they will express their displeasure at the ballot box in November.
-- Rick Arand
Lee's Summit, Missouri

I highly recommend you remove Jeffrey Lord from your staff. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but his rant is full of logical fallacies. In order to preserve any sort of integrity, you really should let him go.

Here is a quick copy and paste of what he wrote and I'll follow with why it is wrong.

* Vietnam
* Cambodian genocide
* Invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets
* Communist takeover of Nicaragua
* Iranian Hostages
* Rescue of American hostages in Grenada
* Bombing of Beirut Marine Barracks
* Creation and funding of the Strategic Defense Initiative
* A Nuclear 'freeze' with the Soviets
* Deployment of Pershing Missiles in Europe
*The B-1 and B-2 Bombers
* The Trident submarine
* The Patriot Missile
* Removing Saddam from Kuwait
*The Patriot Act
* NSA Eavesdropping of Terrorist calls
*Terror Detainee Bill

In every single instance -- all of them -- the Democratic Party response was some version of a "cut and run" psychology.

Vietnam was a stupid and failed campaign. At one point we had over 400,000 troops inside of Vietnam and American forces still couldn't repel the NVA and VC forces. Nixon's presidential campaign was geared toward exiting Vietnam and it would be under Republican leadership that America left Vietnam.

The Cambodian Genocide was a direct result of Nixon's bombings of Cambodia. That led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge, the blame goes right on Nixon's shoulders.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Democrats cut and run from it? What in the bloody hell is Lord talking about? The only thing that led to was Reagan propping up the Taliban and training and supplying Osama bin Laden and his fighters. That didn't come [backfire] now, did it?

Carter attempted and failed miserably to rescue the hostages. There was no cut and run. There are allegations that Reagan helped prolong the crisis in order to help his election campaign.

I'm going to switch the order here, the bombing of the Beirut barracks and its response is all Reagan. He ordered troops out, not the Democrats. Now then, 2 days after the bombing Reagan orders the invasion of Grenada. And Republicans talk about "wag the dog" with Clinton.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Trade, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Mainstream Media, Television, Religion, Islam, Abortion, Environment, Constitution, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Israel, United Nations, NATO, Nuclear Weapons, Oil