The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 2 of 7)

br> Yorktown, Virginia /p>

Contrary to Jeff Emanuel's multiple claims about "war on terror," "victory in Iraq," "strategy" and "winning." The truth is much more clear and obvious. Bush and his cronies invaded Iraq to secure the oil resources of that country. Whether you believe the Neocon plan to increase the flow of oil from Iraq to crush OPEC, or the Oil Corp. plan to restrict the flow of oil from Iraq to maintain the artificially high price of oil, it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that they invaded to control the oil resource and the whole "War on Terror"/Al Qaeda/911/WMD's" bull manure is the smoke screen being used to sell it to the American public. Access to the oil is why we haven't left yet and that's why the "oil law" is the most important part of "reconciliation," because in that law are the profit-sharing agreements that allow unfettered, unalterable access to Iraqi oil by Anglo-American oil companies for the next 30 years. So how much more American and Iraqi blood do you want to spill for Oil Corp/Saudi profits?

p>If you continue to have the author write for you, why don't you ask him to lay off the kool aid and treat your readers like adults. br> -- Dr. Erik Thompson /p>

A man brings in his German shepherd to the vet. The dog is listless and fatigued. The doctor runs the standard battery of tests and reports back that the dog is seriously malnourished. The man says that impossible; I put out the most expensive and nutritious dog chow every morning. The doctor inquires does the dog eat it? The man thinks a bit, and answers indirectly that he sometimes feeds the dog food scraps. The doctor asks about the other family members. Yes, they feed the dog too. The doctor patiently explains that the dog does not have the intelligence to choose wisely when presented with a myriad of choices, especially if the food that is damaging is the tastiest choice. The man must be responsible for the dog and feed it only what it needs or grave damage will be done to the dog

p>While the last thing America needs is censorship, one of the first things she needs is citizens who think before and after they digest the news; in fact, our entire electorate system was created upon the idea of an informed citizenry. We have, thankfully, a plethora of news ranging from the Looney Left to the Up Tight Right and everything in between. Too often people pick news sources, if they have one at all, that are most convenient or entertaining. Few people think about, let alone investigate, the philosophy, ideology, or dogma of their news sources. When it comes to news, Americans are overstuffed and undernourished. It is imperative that we take responsibility for our being informed before grave damage is done. br> -- Ira M. Kessel /p>

Honesty compels me to admit being one of the ignorant and defeatist whom Jeff Emanuel scolds. Allow me to explain how I got there, even if it doesn't stop the scolding.

My defeatism ought to be easy to understand. I believed we entered Iraq to eliminate the threat posed by a bloodthirsty dictator who vigorously supported terrorism. We had every reason to believe he would supply WMDs to terrorists. Diplomacy, isolation and sanctions had not worked, so we used force. Our redoubtable armed forces won the conventional war in a New York minute, vanquishing Saddam's armies and sending him into hiding. No problem there. But it all went sour starting the day Bush announced "Mission accomplished." The President was either premature or just plain wrong. As there were still areas not subdued, he should have held his tongue until resistance was eradicated. Instead, he left pockets of viable opposition who even today have yet to be taken out. He allowed them sanctuary in this or that mosque. He let collateral damage considerations outweigh victory. Fresh recruits flow across the same Iranian and Syrian borders that the elusive WMDs crossed, although border control has never been one of Bush's strengths (a topic for another letter).

Commanders hamstring our troops with ridiculous rules of engagement which give the enemy an advantage. Example: a terrorist bounds into view and starts spraying submachine gun fire into a squad of Marines, tagging three. He then throws down his weapon and puts his hands up. What instructions did the Pentagon give our boys? If you guessed "Don't return fire, just walk up and accept his surrender hoping there aren't any other snipers hidden nearby," you are very close to what my Marine son was told. According Geneva Convention treatment to terrorists isn't just unnecessary, it's idiotic. Reminiscent of "The Far Side" cartoon about the Wimpodites who fought with pillows being easy prey for other Vikings.

topics:
Business, Religion, Islam, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, NATO, Oil