The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Having It Both Ways

5.23.08 @ 12:01AM

MY LEFT FOOT
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s Appeasers and Bullies:

You Republicans are so pathetic. Can't you see all the problems you guys have caused in the last 14 years? Yes, you guys are right on about Bill Clinton, but you followed him up with this absolute criminal Bush and you continue to brag about it. You must be some sort of idiot. Diplomacy is the hardest part of being president. I'll bet you were not in the service. All you guys are a bunch of chicken hawks. Appeasement, my foot!
-- Joseph Johnston

Reading "Appeasers and Bullies" I had to remember the mindset that would find the inference of being accused of "being nice" to political/military/terrorist groups.

The adage "It's the sin, not the sinner" and others like it and the attitude that you can "reform" the worst in humanity, is what the liberal platform is made. They know what is better for us and how to make life more pleasant for all of us.

The mentality reaches into every facet of our American daily life and we have incorporated it into our every breath. From the now accepted "No Smoking" everywhere! Soon even in your own home! To the extreme of "no cars" at least not the vehicle that most of us think of as a car.

How can there be people so evil and hateful that they want to destroy America? They are just misunderstood, and deserve the chance to have negotiations with us and be given the benefit of the doubt displayed in the most obvious ways.

Will the rock star Obama dance with the bad guys and say...see...they are not so bad after all.

I see him dancing to the Doors song -- "The End"
-- Len LaBounty
Santa Monica, California

Comparisons between Neville Chamberlain and the current crop of Democrats should be avoided for one reason, which is that they do an injustice to Mr. Chamberlain. After the German invasion of Poland, Chamberlain carried out a full-scale reconstruction of the government to place it on a wartime footing, appointed Winston Churchill to the War Cabinet as First Lord of the Admiralty, established the Special Operations Executive and, after his resignation, joined the government under Churchill. In this role, he provided critical support that prevented acceptance of Hitler's terms, and even opposed the short term interests of his own party by working to create a Conservative power base that would support Churchill. Chamberlain served his nation loyally until his death a few months later.

In contrast, the only Democrat who was willing to put the interests of the nation ahead of the ambitions of his party was Joe Lieberman, and you saw how his party responded. Far more common were those who chose to impede progress in the War on Terror, repeat the propaganda of our enemies and provide them with aid and comfort in the hopes that their victory will translate into a Democratic win in 2008. The proper analogy to Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is not Neville Chamberlain, but Vidkun Quisling, who sought to undermine his nation's defense in return for political power.
-- Mike Harris
MAJ, U.S. Army

I'm struck by how often in the last few days conservative outrage over the outrage president bush elicited over his comments at the Knesset, and how often conservatives as of late seem to have historical amnesia. You mock the fact that President Carter was discussing "human rights, of all things." Of course, because how could Hezbollah or Hamas have anything to do with such a thing, when the U.S. and Israel set such wonderful examples. The hypocrisy is extraordinary, and takes genuine ignorance not to notice. Further comment is not needed. I implore you to look at the facts, and quit your shameful propaganda.
-- Stephen Moser

The right and the left have descended into an inane and humorless fight over to whom President Bush was referring in his speech before the Knesset. Was it Senator Obama? Jimmy Carter? GOP senator William Borah of Idaho? Nobody in particular? The answer is none of the above. Let me clear up the mystery. He was referring to his grandfather, Senator Prescott Bush, the business partner of Nazi financier Fritz Thyssen and a director of the Hamburg-American Line, a company investigated by the McCormack-Dickstein Committee for Nazi propaganda and involvement in a plot to assassinate President Roosevelt. NO, I AM NOT SERIOUS. What I have written about Senator Prescott Bush is "factual," but even a cursory investigation into his life will demonstrate why it is nothing more than unfair innuendo.

My point: Give a "fact" (President Bush didn't name anybody in his speech) to a willing army of media manipulators, talk show hosts and bloggers, who keep repeating the "fact" and insisting it is "accurate" even after a closer look at the total situation renders it highly suspect, and you can persuade far too many people of its "truth." After the White House alerted the press corps that the President's speech would raise eyebrows, are we really gullible enough to believe that his speech writer was not referring to Senator Obama? The situation simply lacks the artistry required to pass the test of "plausible denial." Khrushchev, while banging his shoe on the desk at the UN, promised to bury us. His goal was nothing less than to destroy the United States and impose communism on the entire world. I shudder to think what might have happened if George Bush were president at that time in our history.
-- Mike Roush
P.S. Please consider hiring Mike Dooley as a contributor to TAS.

Since Sen. Obama bristles at any suggestion that his foreign policy may border on appeasement, and prefers instead to be known as the Great Unifier; the man that can bring us all together, perhaps we should just put him to work right here, right now. He and his following believe our relationships around the world are suffering, and if we'd only sit down and have nice conversations with leaders, dictators and murderous thugs all across the globe, he, with his messianic presence and discernment could find out just what is bothering everyone. He could talk things over and bring the other side into his way of thinking, which is change, change and more change everyone can believe in. Well, the average American in this country is suffering every time the car needs gas. His compatriots in Congress think a lawsuit against OPEC might help, but isn't that just a continuation of cowboy aggression? Isn't such an approach just too mean-spirited for the likes of the peaceniks and doves that may rule our land soon? Instead, let's invite Sen. Obama to go sit down right now with the presidents of Iran and Venezuela and talk to them, asking politely if they would share more of their oil with us at a much lower cost. Perhaps if they were just allowed the opportunity to air their differences with Sen. Obama, finally having a U.S. government official that truly cares about their feelings, maybe they, too, would be captivated by the very thought of change. After hearing a mesmerizing oration from Sen. Obama, they would feel our pain at the pump, and work with him for change for the common good. Here's a challenge he can sink his teeth into right now. He could follow the lead of Speaker Pelosi when she disregarded protocol and went to Syria, and the lead of Jimmy Carter when he defied the current administration and sought to bring peace to the Middle East recently. Why doesn't Mr. Obama show the country and the world that he, in fact, can bring change we can believe in -- such as relief at the gas pump ASAP. If something doesn't happen soon, those of us that in anger cling to our guns and religion will also soon cling in anger to our SUV's, all-you-can eat buffets and thermostats. Sen. Obama, we need change in this country -- your moment may just well have arrived.

On another note, it was announced yesterday that the Obama campaign took in over $30 million dollars in April and the Clinton campaign took in somewhere around $20 million. Every time I hear either of them on TV giving a speech, they both talk about how most of us are losing our homes and jobs, we can't afford to see a doctor and the country is mired in a deep recession with no way out unless either of them is elected. How is it, then, that each and every month, millions of dollars flood into their campaign coffers? If the nation can barely eat and stay alive since the majority of folks are living in the streets, being thrown from their houses by evil banks and lenders, and we have no jobs, why would people take food from their children's mouths and use that money to support a political campaign? I'm also wondering if Congress is going to haul the financial managers of these campaigns in for hearings, questioning them as to why they are receiving record-breaking amounts of money and how they can sleep at night doing so when the average American can't afford a home, food, health care and gasoline. I wonder if there is a plan under way to tax "Big Campaign," redistributing the money to noble causes.
-- Richard Geddes
Colorado

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, Education, Health Care, John McCain, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Economics, Business, Religion, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iran, Israel, NATO, Communism, Energy, Oil