Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s Repellent and Impertinent:
Thanks. That needed to be said.
-- Tim Botkin
I am a Southern conservative who has voted Republican since the Nixon years. That said, I am disturbed by the insinuation that to question the motives of invading, and it was an invasion, Iraq are impertinent. Our president told us Iraq was a threat to Americans, that Saddam was in the process of developing nuclear weapons. This is a direct statement made during his State of the Union speech. It was unambiguous and clearly stated. So why is it repellent to now ask, "Where are the weapons?"
It would appear Mr. Tyrrell is upset because Kerry and Dean are calling Mr. Bush a liar. What do you expect from two ultra-liberals. I am upset because several hundred thousand men and women will have been put in harm's way under a false pretense.
In this period of post-war reflection are we not free to ponder, having found no evidence of WMD's, why we went to war?...
Finally, if an invasion can be justified because a country is being run by a murderous dictator, what the hell is Castro still doing in Cuba? How about North Korea, China and the entire continent of Africa?
-- Don Smith
Re: "… suggestions that Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W. Bush are liars."
I suppose that would depend on what your definition of WMD is.
-- Dan Martin
A reading of UN Resolution 1441 reveals that there never was a mandate for the UN or anybody else to find any WMD. The burden of proof from the end of the Gulf War was on Iraq and its "benevolent" ruler's Ba'ath regime to show conclusively that there were no more WMDs and to provide evidence that those which were known to have existed in 1998 had been destroyed. It said:
"13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; "
Needless to say, that did not happen. Saddam Hussein had not only not complied, he had continued for over 12 years to lie, obfuscate, and obstruct all attempts by the UN to obtain his compliance.
So the "coalition of the willing" provided the serious consequences and Saddam Hussein's regime of terror is over. In his wake we have found evidence of massive atrocities against the people of Iraq which were even worse in kind and extent than previously had been reported or suspected. Mass graves are showing up everywhere.
The WWII Allies didn't fight against Hitler's Germany to stop the Holocaust, but to liberate the people of Europe. They succeeded, at least in Western Europe, but in the nick of time they also ended the Holocaust everywhere. The United States and the Confederate States didn't fight the Civil War either to end or preserve slavery, but to preserve or end the Union. The Union was preserved and slavery came to an end.
We have found no WMD, but we sure as hell have ended the atrocities. Should we apologize for that?
-- Fritz Steiner
Re: Paul Beston's Communication and the WMD Mess:
Reality check. Paul has fallen for the desperate Democratic spin machine take on WMD. American's outside Manhattan, San Francisco and the Beltway aren't buying. The reason is trust. They trust the President and they don't trust Washington or the press. Contrary to the elitist view, most Americans understood all the reasons we went to war and could care less what is found as long as we continue to become progressively safer from terrorism. I think Paul could reduce his "frustration" level by turning off CNN and MSNBC, and getting a reality check outside the confines of Manhattan.
-- Aftan Romanczak
Gee, I find the America-haters' argument on this point to have an interesting extension. Just as our inability to find weapons of mass destruction proves that they did not exist in the first place, so too does our inability to locate Saddam Hussein prove that he never existed, as well. The Congressional Democrats might, therefore, do well to demand answers to the question, "If Saddam never existed, who were all those body doubles actually doubling for?" Mr. Waxman, what do you think?
Re: Jeremy Lott's Bill O'Reilly Is Dead ... Wrong:
Hi, I enjoyed your article about Bill O'Reilly. He certainly tends to take himself a little too seriously and has himself admitted to having little knowledge of the Internet. And no doubt his occasional bullheaded charges towards some targets without a full understanding of the subject matter are a little irritating.
Unfortunately this is one of the best alternatives to what is on the boob tube these days and is reflected by the immense popularity of the O'Reilly factor. I must say I have occasionally watched a show called "Scarborough Country" on MSNBC which merits a closer look. The few shows I've seen have been accurate and on point. I'll set my Tivo to record this. Hopefully it will turn out to be a success.
-- Rao Yedla
FAR AND WIDE
Re: George Neumayr's Hit and Run Liberals:
Good piece! Thank you. I hope it gets wide circulation, especially among Catholics.
-- Jude Anthony
HOWIE AND HILLARY
Re: The Washington Prowler's Dean Can't Play Straight (+ Hillary's Captive Readers):
Land sakes. Howie Dean's running from his close association with the homosexual community (after all, he did sign the civil union bill behind closed doors, kind of a closet thing would you say) and Hillary won't show at Demo fund raisers unless everyone gets a copy of her book (free, no less). Up here in the cold north, we have a group called Bread and Puppet theater, a kind of left-wing retro- hippie group of performers. Maybe Hillary and Howie can team up with them and tour the country after their political careers are over. Howie can join them now and get top billing as a contortionist with his gay rights act and Hillary later on as an illusionist and magician using her book as a come-on. She could even sign it in disappearing ink so people will have to keep coming back to see her performance and get another autograph. After the next election, maybe the whole Democratic Party can join the act. Most of them will be looking for a job anyway, and everyone loves clowns. Have a nice day, friends. I am
-- Pete Chagnon
I would imagine that Hillary has figured out that she can claim these fundraisers and speaking tours as part of her book promotion costs and thereby deduct her speaking fees and trip expenses from whichever area that is most financially beneficial to her . Who know perhaps she gets to double dip.
-- Irene Keener
I can just barely remember it but wasn't a Democratic house leader forced to resign a few years ago because, among other things, he had organizations that wanted him as a speaker buy bulk copies of a book he wrote?
-- Frank Gizinski
American Spectator subscriber
Can you please tell me how this is any different from Jim Wright's actions which got him ejected?
-- Kit Winterer
Hillary's screed has sold 600,000 copies you say? And we hear her book will set records for number of copies printed (1,200,000) and ultimately sold. Is this is information being provided by her publisher Simon and Schuster, or by her political enablers such as Terry McAuliffe?
Then how come Rush Limbaugh is telling us that his publisher, Simon and Schuster (what a coincidence?) published 2,000,000 copies of his latest book that were all sold out in eight weeks.
So do we believe Hillary or Rush? Well, I know who I believe!
Bless you, wonderful article. I live in fear this evil woman will one day be -- sorry the P word just won't come out.
-- Joy Venosa
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article