The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Talking Words

11.27.06 @ 12:01AM

(Page 3 of 7)

Oddly, now all I read about in the right leaning-press is that Democrats lost Vietnam. Our imbacile [sic] President suggests his key learning from Vietnam is that we are an impatient country...and that we could have won had we stayed...(or something like that). What a fool!

It's okay for you guys to root for your right wing philosophies and such but you really are making yourselves look stupid to a whole generation of now 50 to 80 year old voters who think you are nuts. Your crazy re-take on Vietnam is all but assuring us Democrats of another huge win in 2008.
-- Joe Scaccia
Pasadena, California

I agree with your assessment that Democrats are trapped in the mindset of "hell no we won't go."

And for Democrats to compare fighting fanatical terrorists that killed on our soil to Viet Nam is delusional.

We all hate war. The problem with Democratic leadership is that they refuse to fight when left with no alternative. Instead, they choose to ignore the threat with the hope it goes away.

In your article you said that Democratic leaders ignored the comments of top military officials and those with boots on the ground. Are you surprised?

After all, as John Kerry said, the military is comprised of uneducated numbskulls.

Losing in Iraq will go a long way toward losing the global war on terror. If the Democratic leadership convinces the majority that fighting terrorism is wrong then we are certainly doomed.

Thanks for your great article.
-- John A. Pozniak Jr.
Severn, Maryland

Mr. Cline may think that the political left is still stuck in Vietnam, but I have another theory. George Bush is acting in bad faith with the American people, therefore the inverse of whatever his policy happens to be is probably the proper course of action. I have long ago quit trying to make sense out of their positions and this is the only one that works for me consistently.
-- J. Brick
Beaver Dam, Arizona

RELIGIOUS SLOWDOWN
Re: Mark Tooley's Not Much Thanksgiving for Episcopalians:

Bishop Jefferts Schori's interviews always feature softball (or even NERF-ball) questions. Here are some questions I would like to see a reporter ask her (I can dream can't I...)

In your papers and press releases prior to your election as Presiding Bishop, you made a big point of "el buen Samaritano" and your deanship of the "Good Samaritan School of Theology." Yet, you have admitted both of these were inflated terms. They have also disappeared from any post-election materials (such as the Episcopal page "Who is the Presiding Bishop?"). Why did you lie on your resume?

Why were you elected? On paper, even with your inflated claims, you were clearly the least qualified candidate. Were you elected solely because of your gender?

During your tenure as Bishop of Nevada, you used the Kairos Prison Ministry materials inappropriately. This organization considers the breaches significant enough that they are suing the Nevada Diocese for copyright violations. Would you care to comment?

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Bill Clinton, Television, Religion, Catholicism, Abortion, Environment, Law, Military, Iraq, NATO, Africa, Oil