Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s He’s Ready If You Are:
R. Emmett Tyrrell articulates the best conservative endorsement to date for Giuliani. I cannot help but admire the same aspects of the guy that Tyrrell also admires. I’ll admit that I even admire him for the “wrong” reason: he’s a fellow paison. How then to reconcile my pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family principles with Giuliani’s legendary contrary ones?
One solution is for Giuliani to publicly state that there are constitutional limits to federal power, that those constitutional limits have been egregiously and repeatedly violated in the last four decades, and specifically among the egregious violations were interventions into abortion, gun possession and the special benefits and rights of married heterosexual couples. If President of the United States Rudolph Giuliani appointed only judges that ruled on the written law and its original intent, not the political whim of the moment, and President Giuliani refused any legislation that a contrary Congress offered that attempted to exceed the constitutional role of the federal government, all conservative objections to a President Giuliani would be rendered moot.
Declaring the excesses of the federal government, swearing to eliminate them, while also faithfully executing the constitutional role of his office, could make Giuliani one of the great conservatives of all time.
People of Italian ancestry have a reputation for being your best friend, or your worst enemy, and nothing in between. Be our best friend, Rudy, and look the American people in the eye and tell them what their federal government should and should not do.
— Frank Natoli
Newton, New Jersey
Great article, Mr. Tyrrell. If Rudy Giuliani is nominated, I will vote for him even while not happy with his views on abortion, gun control, and girlfriends-while-married. However, I have read and heard him say on several occasions that he will appoint Supreme Court Justices who are strict constructionists, and that’s good enough for me.
He understands the threat of Islamic jihadists, the absolutism of low taxes and the need for ever-smaller government. I want to hear more his views on border control and illegal immigrants.
I do have one request of him and his wife, Judi. Please, please no more Al and Tipper moments. So you have a wonderful, wild sex life; I am thrilled for you. The details of which are just too much information! I want to know my President loves his wife — but not exactly how. Thank you.
— Judy Beumler
Step away from the big city. It’s tainting your views on reality.
Sure, maybe Red Rudolph is popular with all of the socialists and liberals in New York State but he’ll never even get off the ground in “real America”.
He, just like the Hildebeast and that RINO McCain, have absolutely no chance of getting true American conservative votes to any degree that will be helpful. Fortunately there are not enough liberals in America (yet) to make a difference either.
Most of us “Flyover-Red-State-Conservatives” will likely not even vote if only offered the likes of the current phonies in the line up so far.
Except maybe Tancredo… He’s the only one with the balls to stand up to the biggest phony of them all – Bush and his amnesty pals from Mexico.
Get a grip. The world does not revolve around NYC. In fact to the majority of Americans, NYC is nothing but enemy territory — same goes for anything that crawls out of it.
The Big Apple is truly rotten to the core and as the saying goes, one bad apple can spoil the whole barrel.
— B. Snell
Under ordinary circumstances, Rudy Giuliani would be a non-starter as a presidential candidate for a social and economic conservative such as myself. But these are not ordinary times. We are at war and a frightening number of Americans — including a galling number of Republicans — have gone wobbly and seem to have lost their sense of direction concerning national-security issues. Securing our way of life at home and defeating Islamofascism wherever it threatens our interests are the overarching issues of the day. Rudy really seems to get this. McCain seems to get it, but he’s such a hard guy to trust on matters that aren’t embraced by his pals in the MSM. Who else among the candidates is really credentialed? Duncan Hunter, sure, but he’s the darkest of horses and lacks a compelling story. Ya gotta love Newt on virtually every level save one — he’d cancel out Hillary’s negatives. Rudy, on the other hand, is not only credentialed, but he is the only candidate who has “earned the right” to air the 9/11 video footage of which America so desperately needs to be reminded. Perfect he’s not, but name the Democrat presidential hopeful that you think will do a better job of defending our security at home and abroad.
If lawyer Rudy can commit to appointing strict constructionist judges — law and order judges, if you will — then I’m on board. This is an election where we need someone who is right on the big issues more than we need someone who is right on all the issues.
— John Shirvinsky
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania
Regarding R. Emmett Tyrrell’s remarks concerning Rudy Giuliani’s chance at being President, let me suggest that the last sentence of his story, “What they need to hear next is where the mayor who would be president stands on conservative social issues” is the crux of the matter in its entirety. In particular, the former Mayor’s position on firearms issues is not just unacceptable, it is the reason why I, and many other conservatives like me, would God forgive me, rather see Hillary in office than vote for someone who will sell our rights down the river. Four years, or even eight would be a long, hard time, but it is not an eternity.
The hard truth is that the foundation of our government, of and by the people, depends on the Second Amendment. No matter his virtues regarding economic issues, Giuliani has consistently shown the Northeastern Republican elitist contempt for the rights of the law-abiding gun owners that makes him unelectable at the head of the Republican ticket. I, for more than one, will not hold my nose and vote for someone who would promote polices that will make be a criminal. Better to stand in principled opposition than sacrifice principle for piecemeal political expediency.
— Joe Phillips
Red River, New Mexico
I wish I could be as eloquent as Mr. Tyrrell about Mr. Giuliani. While the praise might be true I still have three MAJOR concerns, abortion, gay marriage, and gun control. For example, when Mr. Giuliani states that there will be NO new gun laws or bans even proposed, and the second amendment is absolute, then I will give him a second look. I love my AR’s and 45ACP’s too much to have someone say, well, the Second only covers hunting.
Second, I look forward to C. Kenna Amos letters. Some day I will ride my “hog” through the “other Princeton” and wave to him as I ride by. He has been missing of late.
— Maxwell Bricks
Princeton, New Jersey
Editor’s note: Mr. Amos appeared in yesterday’s Reader Mail, and he is also in today’s.
Although it’s been noted ad nauseam by many men in the street responding in this column Rudy is FAR from ready for primetime no matter how his cheerleaders shout him up or remain in denial about his character flaws. He has real and continuing problems with the base which chose to walk during the last election for the same reasons that present problems for Rudy, not limited to mistresses, divorce, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and gun confiscation, etc.
Economics are a large and important part of the equation and a plus mostly for Rudy, but R. Emmett’s love letter talked ONLY about his perceived strengths and never whispers about his huge dark side that apparently everybody except Emmett sees anytime they look at Rudy. Rudy is like the argument over collateral damage in war. The trains run on time but the damage from how he got them there is ignored.
Rudy is “ready” for NY and its like environs but not nearly as ready for fly over…behind enemy lines.
— Craig Sarver
Mr. Tyrrell’s endorsement of Rudy G. will not change my mind. Granted he is far better than McCain, but his pro-abortion position, and anti second amendment stance will not bode well for him here in the heartland.
Anybody that takes a position that this Army vet, and all other law abiding citizens have to take a test to own a rifle, and/or a hand gun is not going to get any votes in my neck of the woods; I don’t give a damn what he did after 9/11.
— Jim Karr
Blue Springs, Missouri
Are you serious about rescuing a conservative crackup? Giuliani’s stand on abortion, homosexual unions and Gun Control will lose the next election as well, for the Republican Party. Guaranteed! Family values voters are conservative first, Republican second. Check out polling data and you will find that conservatives will either sit out the vote or vote for a third party protest candidate.
— F.J. Derose
While there is the Rudy Giuliani of 9-11, there remains the Rudy Giuliani of 9-10 — the ugly divorce, the serious health problems, dropping out of the race for Senate.
When Norman Podhoretz thundered on CSPAN Booknotes that having Hillary Clinton elected to the Senate posed an existential threat, I dug as deeply into my pockets as my family finances permitted to support Mr. Giuliani. A lot happened next, and well, Ms Clinton is in the Senate, and while the world hasn’t come to an end, things aren’t that great in my opinion either.
Are we supposed to support Rudy, and once more have Ms. Clinton elected to high political office?
— Paul Milenkovic
Once again Bob Tyrrell, with his keen political and analytical mind, has demonstrated why he is way ahead of the popular political curve. He has cut through the political blather and has told us why Rudy Giuliani is perhaps our best chance to run a candidate that is squarely within the tradition of Ronald Reagan. I know, I can hear some TAS readers asking how can I say that, given some of Giuliani’s more “liberal” positions. Well, quite frankly, part of our problem as Republicans and conservatives, is to establish what precisely the gold standard that Ronald Reagan set for us was.
For instance, just yesterday, Roger Hedgecock, substituting for Rush, while analyzing Giuliani’s conservative bona fides, made a flippant comment about Giuliani’s several wives, as a disqualifier. I would like to remind Mr. Hedgecock that Reagan was also divorced. In addition, as president, he presided over an amnesty program for illegal aliens, a matter near and dear to Hedgecock, as well as tax increases. Reader Michael Tomlinson has, on several occasions, brilliantly articulated these points for us…. In fact, I would hope that TAS would offer Mr. Tomlinson, when primary season nears, space to once again set the record straight for us as to what exactly the Reagan legacy was. Once we’re all on the same page as to what precisely we acknowledge about Reagan, we can move forward in choosing a candidate and not snag ourselves on petty thorns.
As for me, let me simply say that Giuliani passes the “smell test.” By that I mean, as a former elected official, I’ve seem many folks whose only purpose in life is to seek political power, at all costs. The current Democrat field is testimony to those who cannot fathom a country without them in control. You can smell their lust for power on them. Giuliani has always shown me that he believes life exists beyond politics and that life does not begin or end with obtaining the presidency. Unlike John Kerry, even if Giuliani doesn’t succeed in his quest, he’ll not spend the rest of his life in abject misery.
I find this assuring, for as the old adage goes, if you want something that badly, you probably shouldn’t have it. Simply put, Giuliani is not only well grounded; he reeks of natural leadership ability. Some folks have it, most don’t. As to the issues, I’ve read most of Giuliani’s comments, as he starts the primary circuit. What he has said about judges and other hot button issues, is exactly what a conservative candidate should be saying. On judges, he even uttered the political touchy “strict construction” test, as opposed to the more chic and fashionable “original intent”. Finally let me say, that, unlike many of the current crop of candidates, both Democrat and Republican, Giuliani is a politician who still has a healthy respect for the people and what the Constitution says about who is supposed to serve whom. You certainly can’t say that about most of the elitists currently in the mix. So, let the debate begin.
— A. DiPentima
I will vote for Rudy Giuliani if he is nominated by the Republicans.
Come to think of it, I will vote for any Republican if Hillary Clinton is nominated by the Democrat(ic) Party.
I will not vote for a third party candidate, ala Ross Perot, which brought us Bill Clinton.
— Nelson Ward
Cowles, New Mexico
I like Giuliani’s robust and principled foreign policy, and, living in NYC during his administration I appreciate the great job he did for the city, but, as a Republican with strong beliefs in Milton Friedman economics, I’m not sure where Giuliani stands in those areas. Also, apart from economics, Giuliani doesn’t support traditional marriage, favors even more restrictive gun control, etc.
I think every conservative is going to have to do a hard balancing act supporting Giuliani. I wouldn’t expect him to alter his beliefs to seek the nomination, but I sure would like him to really clarify all these economic, moral, and social issues.
— Ronald Ribman
Well, I’m not. Mr. Giuliani is on the wrong side of two issues that are, in my mind, “trump issues.” First, he is in favor of Amnesty for illegal aliens. Second, he favors continuing our vicious slaughter of innocent life in and just outside the womb. Either of those would cause me to stay home in the event of his candidacy. Combined, they would cause me to picket in front of my polling place against him.
— Keith Kunzler
Re: Yale Kramer’s Grasping the Nettle:
Once again, Dr. Kramer demonstrates the ability to think clearly and the courage to speak freely.
Kudos for publishing another Kramer article.
— Elaine Helberg
Boca Raton, Florida
I just finished reading Yale Kramer’s article, “Grasping the Nettle.” While he makes some good points regarding the reasons for the degeneration of the situation in Iraq that has culminated in its current state, he fails to grasp the “strategic” significance of Iraq.
The United States did not invade Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people. This nation is not that altruistic, nor that stupid. If we wished to liberate oppressed peoples around the world, we could have started with Cuba forty years ago and continued throughout Eastern Europe for the next three decades. No, the reasons for the Iraq invasion were simple. We invaded first to send a message to our enemies, second, to provide a stable location for large, permanent forward military bases from which to put pressure upon and, if necessary, to support a war against Iran. The third reason was simply because we could justify the invasion of Iraq.
Now, just in case you all have missed it, the United States has been busily constructing four huge military bases within the borders of Iraq. These bases will be capable of housing and supporting approximately 80,000 military personnel and hundreds of aircraft and armored vehicles. While none of these is located in the Kurdish controlled area of the North, this is a calculated decision.
The Kurds welcome a U.S. military presence in their area and it is possible to stage a significant numbers of U.S. personnel there without a large permanent base. In addition, we do not wish to alienate the Turks, who are having a problem with Kurdish separatists in the eastern area of Turkey, bordering Iraq; nor do we wish to embolden the Kurds into attempting to form a separate nation of Kurdistan straddling the Iraq-Turkish border. Any sort of “permanent” base in that area could do exactly that. Hence, no base.
As for “humanitarian” missions for our troops, forget it. To provide these types of services, personnel would have to go to those areas of the country that are unstable. This means that the non-combat troops (I love that term) would have to be protected. To do that, combat troops would be necessary to provide this protection. As we cannot depend upon Iraqi units to do this, nor do we want to, U.S. combat personnel would have to assume that role. In other words, we would be doing exactly what we are doing now.
While it is nice to fantasize about curtailing our involvement in Iraq, it is a waste of time. U.S. troop strength will not decrease in Iraq until Iran’s nuclear threat is eliminated. This will happen when Iran goes nuclear, the Israelis (with U.S. assistance) knock out their nuclear production sites or the Iranians voluntarily back down and allow unfettered inspections of their facilities. The only other reason for a drawdown in troop strength would be for Congress to eliminate funding for Iraq operations, something that is unlikely at present.
There is no safe way to withdraw from Iraq while
Iran continues upon its present course. Get used to the idea of U.S. personnel remaining in Iraq for some time to come. Probably in the large multi-use bases now being completed.
— Michael Tobias
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
“We have demonstrated unequivocally that we can reduce a country to impotence and chaos without dropping a single nuclear bomb.” Then Iraq before us was potent and focused? You must be kidding.
How about focusing on the real chaos makers and castrators in Iraq, now and/or historically: Saddam Hussein, even some of his predecessors; many Islamic clerics and other leaders, there or in other predominantly Muslim countries; scads of Islamofascists; outside Middle East influences such as Iran and Egypt; Wahhabis from Egypt and Saudi Arabia; the United Nations, particularly the Security Council; etc.?
And why “we don’t fight non-conventional wars very well”? Could it be that we play by nonsensical rules that hamstring our soldiers and defeat our strategies and tactics and, thus, favor the enemy? Or that we’ve allowed the domestic politically correct input to have disproportionate influence through overblown hype and exposure in the biased MSM? Or that we don’t have national leadership to counter the politically correct? Or that we don’t have the national will and/or patience to see unconventional wars to successful completion?
— C. Kenna Amos
Princeton, West Virginia
Great, now we have a psychiatrist telling us how to run a war. What next, the caveman?
Thanks but no thanks.
— Joseph D’Ambrosia
Re: Robert VerBruggen’s Ending Childless Marriage as We Know It :
I must disagree that gay marriage is inevitable, and I believe that cynical grandstanding like the Washington state initiative is one reason why it will eventually fail.
Mr. VerBruggen is correct that the measure is symbolic; I think, however, that a backlash is more than a possibility. We who frequent sites like TAS — on all sides of the political spectrum — are likely to have read in depth about the issue, including interviews with its proponents and analyses of their reasoning. But most middle Americans who hear about it, if at all, will get most of their information from TV news and local media as soundbites and pithy headlines, without the supposedly nuanced political strategy underlying it. They will only see a draconian idea aimed squarely at their values and ideals, and their (most likely, viscerally negative) reactions will be based on this incomplete, simplified view of the matter.
Not that I’m complaining…
— Peter J. Lyden, III
Rumson, New Jersey
I can’t even begin to describe my anger at the suggestion being forwarded by these yahoos to end “childless marriages.” My wife and I tried for 20 years to have children. She went through operation after operation, suffered almost daily from endometriosis and accompanying pains that had her walking on her tiptoes. And let’s not even get into the agonizing menstruation. And fertility pill after fertility pill that had her on an emotional rollercoaster.
We even tried In Vitro Fertilization. In fact, she tested pregnant, and we were on cloud 10 for about 4 days. Then she had her period.
I’ve listened to her crying silently at night with the pain that she couldn’t have children. I’ve seen her suffer at family reunions as the only childless sibling. And I suffered as well. I new I could have kids; all I had to do was leave her. Yeah, dump her as a worthless thing just so I could have kids. Not an option.
Through all our pain and trials, we had each other. And that was important. Now, some people want to take that away from us.
The point is this: there was always a possibility that we could have kids. A homosexual couple has no possibility of having kids. The whole fertility thing is a crapshoot: you take your chances. Best to start with a chance that’s at least slightly greater than zero.
— Karl F. Auerbach
Perhaps unintentionally, Mr. VerBruggen, but you’ve actually put forth one of the best arguments for the Fair Tax. What we need is to completely remove the “social engineering” aspects of the current system of taxation, and let these issues stand, or fall, on their own merits.
— Mike Showalter
Re: Bernard Chapin’s Post Super Bowl Feminism:
Professor Sommers is no doubt a highly intelligent woman and a gifted writer, but I hope to see the day when conservative men won’t need such books to bolster their flagging self-esteem. As noted in the article, this time around the good vs. evil theme is manifested as the radical feminists (the bad girl gender feminists) corrupting the conservative feminists (the good girl equity feminists). The good girls only want independence and equal rights, while the bad girls are out for world domination and the elimination of men.
While I wish Sommers many fat royalty checks, this good vs. evil feminist theme has always been a fairytale aimed directly at conservative men. The reality is we live in a matriarchal society and have been for the past 80 years. Feminism, which is a political-economic movement intended to benefit all women, has adopted the good cop — bad cop tactics from the Civil Rights Movement to advance their agenda. The radicals generate in your face demands while the conservatives rush in to remind men they don’t want domination, just equal rights. The resulting compromises, when enacted in law, always advance the cause of women, all women, just as it’s intended.
During the 1960s, there was a theme, briefly popular, that demanded a separate geographic nation within the United States for African-Americans, complete with its own government and only for African-Americans. It might be necessary to “kill whitey” to achieve it, but was historically and morally justified. Except for the usual nut-jobs, this was the last thing African-Americans really wanted of course. They wanted entitlements, affirmative action, preferences, etc. The radical demands and tough guy talk about killing whitey made it possible to advance the real agenda aimed at economic and political goals.
Given the obvious success of the civil rights movement, it’s not surprising the feminists connected the dots. What is surprising is that men, especially conservative men, continue to fall for this fairy tale of radical vs. conservative feminists. If you look beyond the good cop — bad cop rhetoric, there is no concrete evidence such an ideological split exists now or that it ever existed in the past. When the “equity” feminists gather their millions, march on Washington and demand the overturn of economic and political preferences, this modern fairy tale will have a happy ever after ending.
— Patrick Skurka
San Ramon, California
In 1964, at age 18, my twin sister, my fiancÃ©e and I found ourselves leaving high school and looking forward to making “choices” that would affect the course of our lives. At 20 I received a draft notice, and ended up in the army. My twin had chosen motherhood and a little part-time work later in life. My fiancee became my wife two months into the army and finished college while I was in the military police.
All during that time I read news and magazines about the daily death count of young men in Vietnam — with eventually 58 thousand dying – and six women, while I heard feminists complaining about women’s roles. Feminists said “men make war, let them die in them” and I thought of the many soldiers who were drafted too young to vote; voting age was 21. Many female voters supported the war while knowing they were exempt from military duty.
My twins sister found 41 years of happiness provided for, almost entirely, by her husband who was content with his role of working, and commuting, 11 hours a day, five days a week, for 37 years. My wife and I divorced, the 100% disability I ended up with, as part of my “role” as a man in the army, was more than we could handle. She ended up as a professional with decades in the work place, out earning most men. We are still friends.
It’s been disheartening to see that feminists — not equity feminists like both Chapin and Sommers — have continued to discount the real lives of men and women, and to lump us all together, judging income, or status, with measurements that are not universal, and they always find that women lose, at every turn, and men have all the advantages. It’s simply not true, not in health, or education or income.
Sommers is correct, feminists no longer have the credibility they once had, but they still control classrooms from elementary schools through college. Every graduating class contains students that have learned to despise men for crimes we never committed while those same students over look the many ways men sacrifice for others.
From the Titanic to much higher death rates in the work place, to the very long days and hours men work, we have done our share. We need to hear from more people like Bernard Chapin and Christina Hoff Sommers who care equally for both genders.
— Steve DeLuca
U.S. Army (retired)
Re: Jay Homnick’s Hot Air America:
Enjoyed Jay Homnick’s piece on Air America, which had many of the comic flourishes I’ve come to count on in his writing. There’s something to his thesis about progressive attitudes making for bad talk radio, and he may well be right.
I do not think he is right to praise Al Franken, however. Anyone who has ever listened to Franken’s show comes away with the impression that he’s hit the cough syrup too hard. His attempts at wry and deadpan sound stilted, because to be wry or deadpan you need more wit. Steve Martin, for example, can deadpan like nobody’s business. Not so Al Franken.
As to the contention that Franken has earned his living in comedy for many years– he was a mediocre joke writer who branched into standup, but he’s never been in the same league as greats like Bill Cosby. I say he makes his money as a B-list “personality,” not as a comedian. If, as rumored, Franken runs for a U.S. Senate seat from Minnesota, his lack of intellectual heft should be even more glaringly apparent than it already is.
Sadly for Air America, Franken’s par for the course. Stephanie Miller can be fun to listen to, but Randi Rhodes is crazy-making.
— Patrick O’Hannigan
San Diego, California
Mr. Homnick’s article is typically insightful. However, if I may, I’d like to add a point. Conservative talk radio is commercially viable because it is the alternative to the mainstream media, which, of course, is overwhelmingly and unabashedly leftist. To what is Liberal talk radio an alternative? What does it offer that isn’t already provided by virtually every newspaper rabbit ear TV station in the country?
If we conservatives could hear our points of view expressed in the mainstream media the way the Liberals hear theirs, conservative talk radio would dry up in a matter of weeks and Al Franken’s program would suddenly become commercially viable. I, for one, would agree to that trade any day.
Between 1949 and 1987 the so-called “fairness” doctrine was in place requiring new outlets to offer “both sides” of the story. But both sides according to whom? To determine such there must always be some kind of Propaganda Czar or Thought Control Committee who gets to make the call. That, at the end of the day, is nothing more than the stifling of free speech. And as we know Liberals are trying mightily to resurrect that law. That is an anathema to freedom and as such we must fight it tooth and nail. It’s amazing that this is even under discussion, or that the “fairness” doctrine was in place for so long in this land of the free, but so it is and was. As Rabbis Cohen and Rosen might have commented upon its proponents, the motive of those sinister imbeciles is the opposite of freedom.
— R. Trotter
I always enjoyed and read with interest Jay Homnick. Until I saw his statement “Stephanie Miller is a super radio talent who does great production pieces with funny voices and sound effects.” That woman is an idiot and if Homnick believes she has talent, I quit reading him right now.
— Joe O’Mara
A STATE’S RIGHTS
Re: James F. Csank’s letter (under “War Torn”) in Reader Mail’s Cross Purposes:
Mr. Csank is himself begging the question. First, before the War Between the States, there was no such thing as a “U.S. Citizen”. One was a citizen of the State he or she lived in so Lee could not renounce something that did not exist. Second, The Commonwealth of Virginia reserved the right to withdraw from the U.S. Constitution at its pleasure, which it exercised prior to the Lincoln setting up a blockade of Virginia’s (and the rest of the South’s) ports. This was an act of war against Virginia by the Federal Government of the U.S. against the state of Virginia. Add to that the fact that the U.S. government recognized and adopted the “State” of West Virginia, an act that is against the U.S. constitution’s protections of State’s borders, and prohibition against splitting States without consent. West Virginia’s separation was unconstitutional. Lee had every right to defend his State, and his Nation (the CSA) from unconstitutional Federal aggression by the U.S. President and the U.S. Army and Navy. Virginia was under siege and the right of self defense is universal. The fact is that Lincoln had no right to treat Virginia as an enemy and because he did so, Virginia had every right to oppose the U.S. in its actions, even unto war.
— Sean M.
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
Re: Jay Molyneaux’s letter (under “For It Before They Were Against It”) in Reader Mail’s The Great Land:
Some thoughts about the interesting response of Jay Molyneaux. In the second paragraph, he omitted the most critical and important rule — that being: For God’s sake, and at all costs, don’t do anything that might make the enemy angry with us.
His final paragraph is too simplistic in that it has been proven throughout history not to work, by such luminaries as Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Chairman Kim, and many others.
We need to go back to the old rules — last practiced in WWII — fight to win. PERIOD! Starting with Korea, this country has proven beyond a doubt that the lawyers in congress can neither properly prosecute nor win wars. This is precisely why the founding fathers specifically gave us a SINGLE commander-in-chief in the Constitution.
— Carl Lueders