p>How you can continue to write tripe against the Clintons and ignore the most corrupt government the U.S. has ever had. So much material, so few rational brains.
p>Ben, I adored your column in Los Angeles about 1980. What laughs I had. It's sad to think it's come to this.
BR>Re: William Tucker's
p>I was critical of Mr. Tucker's last piece “Prisoner of War.” Today's dispatch is better.
p>Reports from the front by embedded journalists are important. I believe that part of the problem with declining support for the war in the U.S. is that many Americans hardly know a war is going on. We are so comfortable in our lives, so wealthy in almost every respect, so protected from the dangers of the rest of the world, that the Iraq war seems like just another political fight between Republicans and Democrats. Did Libby lie to a grand jury? Should Howard Dean talk to foreign governments? Should we pull our troops out of Iraq? Many Americans seem to think the answers to these questions, whatever the answers might be, will make no difference in their lives. And with respect to the first two questions, I agree. The third question is different. The third question is in a different league. The third question has direct implications for the safety of Americans at home and abroad and long-term consequences for American national interests.
p>Informed, factual, sober, non-biased reports from Iraq can help change the dynamic I just described. As Americans understand the nature of the enemy we face, the dedication and bravery of the men and women in our all-volunteer military, and the implications of American withdrawal from the global struggle against Islamofascism, I believe the collective will to prevail in the struggle will improve. We cannot count on MSM outlets to bring this type of reporting to Americans. The decision by
The American Spectator
and other “New Media” outlets to support reporting of this type and bring it to the public is a good one.