The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Desperate Decisions

5.22.07 @ 12:01AM

ROOT CYNICISM
Re: Philip Klein's Obama in the Granite State:

Mr. Klein criticized Barack Obama's comparison of increased foreign aid to the Marshall Plan, reminding us that we only instituted the plan after defeating the Nazis. I would remind him that the Marshall Plan existed to prevent repetition of the past: the dangerous coalescence of poverty and a hateful-yet-charismatic leader. Obama's valid point is that the terrorists are a small percentage of the population, but are burgeoned yearly by the region's severe poor who lack residual purpose in their lives beyond sparking a suicidal explosion to kill a few foreigners. Obama realizes that such desperate decisions can only stem from a confluence of both (1) a lack of other options and (2) the proximity of a target some local imam designated as the cause of your troubles: in this case, U.S. soldiers . Obama accurately identifies poverty as the source of the first cause, and the true fuel for radicalization. In doing so, he understands the Marshall Plan's purpose: the evasion of another bellicose Hitler taking power in a poor country whose economy never recovered from war. If we secure leadership that understands this economic undercurrent in the trend towards middle-eastern radicalization, we can militarily battle existing terrorists while allocating foreign aid that shifts the economic equation for the region's poor away from radical madrassas.
-- Erem Boto

In the piece by Phillip Klein about Mr. Obama, Mr. Klein writes, "Obama has pointed out in recent campaign appearances that, "we are just 16 votes short from bringing this war to a close.'" This demonstrates Mr. Obama's naivete and inexperience beyond any doubt. What Mr. Obama does not know, or chooses to ignore, it that wars are not "ended" by votes.

There are only two ways to "end" a war, win it or lose it. You either defeat your enemy, or surrender to him. Mr. Obama, along with way too many so-called "leaders" in the Democrat party, want to lose. He, and they, would have to improve to rise to the level of despicable.
-- W. B. Heffernan, Jr.

Is it youth and inexperience or ignorance, lack of commitment, fear of standing against real threats and/or stupidity that would lead Barack Obama to declare war on cynicism but reduce the war against terrorists and jihadists to a cost/benefit analysis and payoffs to quiet our enemies?

And 10,000 committed terrorists? Ha! Does that guesstimate by Obama's advisers inspire a collective sigh of relief? Only with those who look for reasons to continue or initiate their denial of the reality of the jihadists' war on Western Civilization.

Barack Obama's to-date campaign seems to be cynically naive -- and empty. And he seems yet another "I'm not my opponent" challenger who appeals, regrettably, to the apparent shallowness of far too many potential voters.
-- C. Kenna Amos
Princeton, West Virginia

IT CAN BE DONE
Re: Windsor Mann's Spent Republicanism:

I regret to inform my dear American friends that, au contraire, fiscal conservatism and balanced budgets are in fact alive and well -- at least here in the fair dominion of Australia. The conservative government lead by Prime Minister John Howard has just handed down its twelfth budget. Before it came to office the government had a deficient of $96 billion, resulting in annual debt servicing costs of $12 billion and average income earners were on a marginal tax rate of 47 cents in the dollar. The last ten budgets have all been in surplus, the existing deficient has been reduced to zero and the government saves $12 billion a year by no longer paying interest on debt. Further more, in the last four budgets, income taxes have been reduced and 85 percent of income earners now pay a single tax rate of 30 cents in the dollar -- some change from 47 cents! The next two years are all forecast to provide budget surpluses and I wouldn't be surprised if the tax rate is reduced further for most taxpayers. A flat tax rate of 25 per cent looks like a real possibility here. Arthur Laffer -- eat your heart out!

Compared to this record, the fiscal record of the Republican Party in government is not conservative at all -- it's incompetent and appalling. You guys don't have a clue about what fiscal conservatism is and that is a big reason why the polls for you stink like a blocked cellblock toilet. There is no reason at all why a disciplined, organized and competent conservative party can't have the same budget record as the John Howard government here in Australia. But since when has the Republican Party in general and the Bush administration in particular shown even faint signs of being disciplined, organized and competent? I don't know whether to laugh or cry over that one. Fiscal conservatism is not the problem for American conservatives and it sure isn't some dream of days gone by. The real problem is the complete lack of basic leadership qualities and simple guts. If Republicans ever find their missing backbone they might find that balanced budgets and tax cuts are not a dream and can be achieved. After all, we did it here and we don't have oil wells like they do in Texas.
-- Christopher Holland
Canberra, Australia

HIM AGAIN
Re: Paul Beston's I'm Jimmy Carter, and I Can't Help Myself:

Bravo Mr. Beston, well thought, well perceived.
-- Ramon

It seems this insufferable man will never become the elder statesman. His annoying behavior continues to worsen (if that's possible) with age. Through his own choice, Carter has turned his mellowing years to vinegar.

He's well aware that his presidency is considered the "least effective" (or "weakest" or "most incompetent" -- pick your adjective) by many serious historians, so it's doubly ironic that Carter, who created the worst economy of the twentieth century save for the Great Depression, slams Bush, who has created the most prosperous economy not only in American history, but in history. We are experiencing the unprecedented phenomenon of mass prosperity, in which the greatest health risk to our "poor" is obesity from an abundance of affordable food. The only things we had in abundance during the Carter years were pessimism, gas lines, double-digit inflation and interest rates, and double-knit leisure suits. (In fairness, I have never believed Carter had advance knowledge of the leisure suits, even though they happened "on his watch.")

Carter, unlike Bush, never seemed to grasp that a strong domestic economy tends to benefit people throughout the global economy, so it is rightly seen as an effective tool in international relations. If Carter really wants to know who the worst president in history was, he may find a mirror instructive.
-- Doug Roll
Jacksonville, Texas

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, John McCain, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Television, Abortion, Constitution, Law, Iraq, Iran, NATO, North Korea, Conservatism, Immigration, Energy, Oil