The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 4 of 15)

Face reality: the majority of Americans are bored with the war. Not even Reagan (who passed on the chance fight Islamic terrorism) or Lincoln (who was probably won reelection through Democrat methods) could motivate the American public out of its self-induced stupor. Sadly, far too many Americans in the Northeast and on the left coast with a sizable sprinkling in the Midwest are morphing into gutless Eurabians. Maybe in the next Clinton or McCain administration when the Muslims have nuked New York City or are killing lily white liberals in New England with suicide bombers we'll finally appreciate George W. Bush who's keeping America safe despite itself.

p>Finally, before swallowing all the BS on the war conservatives should talk to the Marines, Sailors, Coasties, Soldiers and Airmen doing the fighting. We're winning, but despite the low casualty rate and the threat of Islamic imperialism Americans would rather complain than support their Commander-in-Chief and military. Fortunately for them the ineloquent George W. Bush isn't Reagan and he'll keep fighting despite the growing desire for national suicide. br> -- Michael Tomlinson br> Jacksonville, North Carolina /p>

Jeff Jacoby partially nailed it when he said, "...I would wager that countless Americans are upset with Bush, not because he isn't skedaddling from Iraq quickly enough, but because he seems to have no serious strategy for winning..."

Given that the Democrats and liberals seem to have only an exit strategy and are committed to losing and abandoning Iraq -- consequences be damned -- how is the Dems' and liberals' being the new Congressional majority reconciled to Jacoby's assertion?

Regardless of an answer, as you say, it does appear that we've lost this one and a great deal more. Likely those yet-to-be-fully-calculated-and-felt losses will not only haunt us and the rest of the world for decades, maybe longer.

p>President Bush could've prevented that, I think, if he'd but told the truth about the war against Islamic fascists and terrorists, and about the real effort required for victory. But the snipers who constantly shot at him bear almost as much responsibility. To date, they seem to have hit their target and got the desired results, haven't they? br> --- C. Kenna Amos br> Princeton, West Virginia /p>

I agree with everything you said in this article. I have long believed and stated that we are not killing our enemy brutally enough nor fast enough. We are at war, but you would think that we were in a '50s rumble, with codes of honor at stake. Yesterday (Dec. 8) I saw TV footage of the aftermath of a firefight in which 20 or so insurgents were killed. The most impressive images that I saw were those of the children's faces. Usually they are somewhat happy and jubilant just to be on camera, you know the scene, but these kids yesterday looked stunned. There was no joy in their appearance. The look was "jeez, did you see that ?..they [ the Americans] f****d those guys up real bad. They looked real serious about killing these bastards." We will only win hearts and minds of the people in Iraq by being in bin Laden's words "the strong horse." If they truly want freedom they will follow us, but only if the seriousness of our commitment demonstrates clearly that we are the "strong horse" and we can only do that now by being dead serious in our will to kill to win.

topics:
Taxes, Education, Trade, Television, Business, Federal Budget, Religion, Islam, Law, Military, Iraq, Russia, United Nations, NATO, Alaska, Oil