The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Attacked From All Sides

6.22.09 @ 6:01AM

(Page 2 of 3)

America is a great nation for reasons beyond counting, and its proper use of power may have the strongest claim to America's central reason for greatness. America has acted as the world's "beat cop" for over a century. We have projected our power and protected millions and millions of people who were defenseless and oppressed. Some people, isolationists and proto-conservative, advocate for withdrawal from the world at large, but they are in the minority and they are wrong. Our republic, established under God, has understood that when one is blessed, one is obliged to share those blessings.

None but the blindly patriotic or the terminally naïve would suggest that America's intervention in foreign affairs is without fault or blemish, but few can make a salient, sustained and supportable argument that, when American has intervened (or interfered) with the internal working of foreign governments, the people, if not the government themselves, were left better off in the long run. (Even Vietnam , which went through a prolonged and painful period of destruction because the Democratic congress immorally and cowardly forced America to withdraw all its influence from the region and to abandon its allies, has emerged into a freer and safer society.) The cynical will, of course, point out that America ’s adventures overseas were undertaken with self-interest as their focal point. To that, the voice of reason would ask, "And what is wrong with pursuing self-interest?" Many will point to Iraq as a misuse of American influence and power. Again, history is a patient judge. The time to evaluate a surgeon is not while one is under his knife, but when one has had a chance to heal. Iraq and Afghanistan are still very much on ongoing operations. With time to heal and gain perspective, America, as is her wont, will have time to judge itself and her actions.

America has pursued a moral course by projecting its power in the pursuit of its own interests and the interests of others. As pointed out by Mr. Lord, President Ronald Reagan stood up to the Soviets; through him, "The Evil Empire" heard our voice, and more importantly, so did the people of Poland. President Obama can find wise council in the words of Martin Niemöller, if I may paraphrase: I stood up for no one when they were threatened, and in the end, no one was there to stand up for me. Simply stated, it is in the self-interest of America to stand up for what is right morally, ethically and pragmatically.

Currently Amir Fakhravar and the Confederation of Iranian Students have neither power nor international recognition, but nearly 30 years ago neither did Lech Walesa or Solidarity. In less than 10 years, Walesa was elected President of Poland. Without President Reagan standing strong against General Secretary Brezhnev, Walesa would not have ever had the chance to be democratically elected; chances are that without American intervention (or in Obama speak, meddling) Walesa would not have lived to see anything but the interior of a prison or gulag before his premature death. By giving moral reassurance to a small band of men and women, the world was transformed: the U.S.S.R. began to crumble. No man can say what the repercussions of supporting, or withholding support, as is the current choice of Our Dear Leader, of the Confederation of Iranian Students will bring. 

Being a moral country means continually examining our positions, philosophies and actions. So far President Obama has been consistently wrong in his Middle East policy, on both practical and moral grounds, but that does not mean he cannot reexamine his administration's policies and actions. The Iranian people, mostly the young, are giving birth to freedom. Obama, once again, has a choice to either be a midwife who sees all involved to safety and joy or he can stand aside and watch a stillborn birth. Sadly, The One's record on this speaks for itself. Even worse, it seems that the people of Iran will have to do the same.
-- I.M. Kessel

The average weak-kneed liberal sees legitimacy in an iron-fisted Mullahcracy as a government that lacks the "restrictions" imposed upon the big 'O' by our Constitution.

News flash to the American Spectator: Republicans, equally weak-kneed, have told us to forget Reagan!

Thus we conservatives forget to donate to Republican causes, we forget to notice 'Republicans,' we never forget being dissed by party lightweights who amass control of the party by our neglect of it.

Purge the party with pride, I say!
-- P. Aaron Jones
Michigan

HEALTH CARE MUST BE SPECIAL
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s Obama's Senior Moment:

I remember reading all about this health plan a couple of years ago in an article written by a special needs advocate. I was interested in the article because I have a child with Down Syndrome. The writer wrote about how medical care would be dispersed. The very last to receive care would be those with special needs. My heart broke as I read this and have been trying to get the word out to all my friends who have children with special needs. But nobody seems to listen. After all the ground we have covered to get our children to be accepted in society, this is such a huge step backwards, beside the fact that I feel like it is way for government to rid our society of our children and family members that are not "perfect." Many countries already get "rid" of these children and I have met families from England, Africa and Mexico who have moved to this beautiful country to save their children.

I wish more people truly understood where this administration is coming from and how, in a blink of an eye, they too could be in that category labeled "non-person."
-- Sandi Holmgren
Marine on St. Croix, Minnesota

COUNTING THE HEALTH CARE COSTS
Re: Suzanne Shobe and Paul Tarai's letters (under "Ration This") in Reader Mail's A Pence for Your Thoughts:

Ms. Shobe says she will continue to vote for any candidate of the Democratic Party because she can't get health insurance. That seems to me to be an issue between you, a lawyer and blue cross -- not you and us taxpayers. 
I have always provided health care for myself and my family. Where is it written that I am also obligated to pay for my neighbor's health care as well? Let my neighbor pay for her own health insurance. If no company offers it, then hire a lawyer (out of your own pocket, please). Lord knows we have enough lawyers around.
-- Garry Greenwood
Gearhart, Oregon

Mr. Tarai says (believes?) "that perhaps government is more effective at limiting costs and improving results in the health care field than is the vaunted private sector." I have only two brief questions for you sir:

Letter to the Editor