The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 6 of 16)

/p> p> BASE LINES br> Re: George H. Wittman's We're Staying Put : /p>

It's like deja vu all over again.

When President Bush spoke to the American people the day after the Gen. Petraeus-Amb Crocker testimony, he missed the mark. His reference to an "enduring strategic relationship" just didn't cut the mustard. Instead, he should have dove into the weeds and prepped the masses on the real skinny -- permanent basing.

He would have never made the "strategic relationship" comment unless he had already received a head-nod from the Iraqi leadership in advance. Therefore, the long-term plan is already in the bag -- a la UK, German, Japanese, Philippine, and South Korean forward basing that quell those countries' troubles from past events in the '40s and '50s. And he should have taken advantage of that fact during the speech.

You say you don't understand why the elites' thongs are in a bunch over this issue? It is because they think (or should I say, feel) with emotion, and do not think with logic and reasoning (or should I say, the adult way of doing business). An objective analysis will immediate tell the observer that permanent basing is the logical conclusion to a 4-1/2 year conflict (and yes, it was a conflict, not a war). On the other hand, for those who prefer a subjective (or liberal) analysis, the result will point towards an imperialistic intention.

p>If the latter is the case, then let me ask you just one question: what physical piece of land has the U.S. added to its geographical make-up since Hawaii was added to the Union? That's what I thought. For those who prefer the former type of analysis, go to the head of the class. br> -- Owen H. Carneal, Jr. br> Yorktown, Virginia

topics:
Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Television, Business, Religion, Islam, Hollywood, Movies, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, NATO