The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Not So Fabulous Baker Boy

10.16.06 @ 12:01AM

BAKER'S WORLD
Re: Philip Klein's Talking With The Enemy:

Please cast your minds back to 1990. We must remember the complete history of James Baker, the aristocratic Secretary of State to Bush 41. He instructed our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspy, (remember her?) to tell Saddam Hussein that we had no interest in his fight with Kuwait. Saddam was itching for war with Kuwait whom he accused of slant drilling into Iraq's oil fields. Right after receiving Baker's message sent through Ambassador Glaspy, Saddam invaded Iraq. From that moment on Mr. Baker left April out there turning slowly in the wind. He denied all knowledge of her conversation. (Someone please tell me what lowly ambassador writes their own portfolio?)

James Baker is a loyal friend to Bush 41, but is decidedly misguided on most foreign affairs. Let's not listen to him or his silly ideas now, please. I trust President Bush and Secretary Rice far more than the very cautious Mr. Baker.
-- Judy Beumler
Louisville, Kentucky

Mr. Klein has hit another home run with his current article. Unfortunately, when it comes to the duplicity and complicity of the Clinton Claque, I am afraid that he is preaching to the choir, and the congregation has already gone to get a start on Sunday dinner at Cracker Barrel.

I would like to see him delve more deeply and extensively into the world of geopolitics according to James Baker. I would also like to see him do an extensive analysis on the extent to which both Bush '41' and Bush '43' and their administrations have been influenced by Mr. Baker.

We know that Mr. Baker was not all that influential during the eight years of President Reagan, but Bush '41' was a Reagan opponent, remember? We know that Mr. Baker served as Secretary of State for Bush '41,' so the influence in that situation was overt, perfectly obvious. We know that Mr. Baker played a hugely important role in the post-election machinations between Bush '43' and Albert "the Stump" Gore. There have been a few other occasions when Mr. Baker has surfaced, taking on important special projects of significance for Bush '43'.

Now here is my question. How much of what we see of a Bush '43' international affairs set of beliefs is due to the influence of Mr. James Baker III? We have seen Bush bluster rhetorically against North Korea, Iran, and Syria, as well as Iraq. Iraq was the only one that has suffered any real result of this rhetoric. I would suggest that Afghanistan and Iraq were the result of a robust, macho response by President Bush to the situation presented on Sept. 11, 2001. Afghanistan was brought under control quickly and a new government installed. It is only of late that the Taliban seem to be growing large enough and bold enough to be of a serious consequence.

Iraq has been a different breed of cat. Even before the war started, Turkey thwarted our plans. I would propose that this has had a bigger negative influence than was seen at the time. Nevertheless, the actual government of Iraq fell in record time, but the significant resistance to our efforts has never ceased to any great extent. Yet President Bush, like his father before him, prematurely declared victory and shifted to a PC, low-level war fighting method that has, in my humble opinion, extended the violence and the loss of life and maiming of our fine military men and women.

Did Mr. Bush '43' let his natural emotions get ahead of him in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 before James Baker could get to him and temper the fire? Are the present PC rules of engagement in Iraq and the "war by lawyer" (the JAGs) proof positive that James Baker III has gotten back in control of the Bush family foreign policy and geopolitical mindset? How much is Condi Rice influenced by James Baker III, and does that become a reinforcing mechanism in advising the current occupant of the Oval Office? I certainly do not know the answer, but I am suspicious and would love to see Mr. Klein do one of his excellent reportorial jobs on the subject.

Mr. Klein is a true asset to the Spectator. Please don't squander that asset or let it atrophy due to underutilization.
-- Ken Shreve
A Conservative First Above All

SCARLET LETTER 'R'
Re: Jeffrey Lord's Nancy Pelosi Ducks:

What a tangled web she weaves!

Nancy Pelosi has made a lot of political hay out of Mark Foley's scandal. But after reading Jeffrey Lord's article, it seems to me that if things had worked out somewhat differently, Foley and Pelosi would have been the closest of allies. Unfortunately for Foley, he has that capital "R" next to his name. Therefore, he has no defenders on the right (nor would he), or on the left (because of his party affiliation).

But in light of Lord's revelation that Pelosi once marched side by side with Harry Hay, a gay advocate of pedophilia, this begs an obvious question: how did we arrive at this juncture?

In the early 1980s, two homosexuals, Hunter and Marsden wrote a propaganda book, After the Ball. This was a blueprint for how homosexuals would gain approval in the larger American society. Part of the strategy was to downplay those much less unseemly elements of homosexuality (i.e., pedophilia). As David Kupelian documents in his book The Marketing of Evil, Hunter and Marsden concluded that only when homosexuality per se comes to be widely accepted should those less acceptable elements be allowed to see the light of day.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Foreign Policy, Nancy Pelosi, Business, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, NATO, North Korea, Nuclear Weapons, Oil