HONORARY NEW YORKER
Re: Paul Beston’s Ground Zeroes:
Please ask Mr. Beston which planes were flown or occupied by Iraqis on 9-11. Then tell him I am a Christian, make moral choices all the time and I find this war immoral and Bush near insane.
— Teresa Welby
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST
Re: George Neumayr’s After the Fall:
Perhaps being over in France, George Neumayr hasn’t heard about the visa lines at the French Embassy in Syria. Escaping Iraqi Baathists may feel more at home in Chirac’s Paris than with their cousins in Damascus.
— Lloyd Coffin
And thus the Islammummification of France continues apace. Perhaps it’s time for TAS to ask its readers to suggest a new name for the country, since current demographics will make France a Muslim country in a generation or so.
My suggestion: Darwinistan.
— David Govett
CAUGHT IN THE ACT:
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s Looney Clooneys:
Must be something in the water in Hollywood, where most of the inmates are deeply embedded in their own navels.
Clooney certainly is loony. And Tim Robbins is not just a fool, but a near about perfect fool (and a perfect partner for the aging but still dishy bubblehead he hangs out with). He has no more control over his mouth and his febrile imagination than Nuke LaLoosh had over his fastball in Bull Durham. Too bad this isn’t baseball. We could just call time, walk to the mound, and give him the hook.
— Larry Thornberry
So what is it that seems to make so many “good” actors the really “bad” ones? You could make a very long list of America’s favorites from TV to the silver screen who have been really enjoyed as they did their jobs but ended up pulling a rug out from under you. Not that it is impossible to disconnect from their apparent personal views and still enjoy the show, but it does take away from the experience. Perhaps the working stiffs of the world can separate fact from fiction. The list of “bad” actors is interesting however. I just marvel at my prior opinions of Ed Asner, Alan Alda, Mike Farrell, Danny Glover and on and on. With every alleged crisis there is someone new that gets type-cast. I’m almost afraid to ask about some of the other old favorites out there. I’d rather not know.
— Roger Ross
Concerning your statement: “Maybe they are just poseurs, though if ever a chain of men’s underwear shops is opened for ‘sadistic creeps,’ I think Tim Robbins would make an inviting poster boy.”
Nah, too old….
— J. Shenk
Someone should find out who wrote Tim Robbins’ Press Club speech. It was too smooth, touched ALL the Lib bases — must have been written by a lefty pro!
— Brooks Hughes
(One of Ann Arbor’s thirty-two right-wingers)
According to a number of “on the ground” reports — I have no way to confirm any of this, saw it on InstaPundit — the museum was looted in the days before the U.S. Military appeared on the scene by ranking members of the outgoing government. How else to explain the fact that certain items were already on the market in France four days ago. This to me would seem to exonerate the U.S. completely. Where are the reporters/investigators on this one?
— Chuck Scanland
It seems to me that the true culprits in the looting of Iraq’s so-called “cultural heritage” are the “human shields.” Instead of using their precious bodies to protect Saddam’s power plants and military installations, the “human shields” should have protected Iraq’s museums and historic sites.
There is still hope! All of Iraq’s “cultural artifacts” have not been lost! The “human shields” still have an opportunity to protect the plastic shredding machines with which Saddam dispatched his victims, the various torture chambers used by his minions, and the mass graves of Saddam’s victims. These and other modern Iraqi cultural artifacts are certainly as valuable to history as the ones left by Iraq’s ancient despots. The “human shields” should protect these modern Iraqi artifacts and perhaps try them out on one another in order to gain a fuller appreciation of Iraqi culture.
— Tillman L. Jeffrey
THE CRUSADE STOPS HERE
Re: Jeremy Lott’s Left Behind:
Jeremy Lott is dead wrong on the Franklin Graham business. Keeping Christian missionaries out of Iraq has little to do with freedom of religion. In point of fact there already exist in Iraq, along with Moslems, Assyrian Catholics, known as Chaldeans. And they co-existed peaceably under the old regime for many years. They were not persecuted as is the case in other Islamic countries in the Middle East.
Mr. Graham and the Christian missionaries must be kept out in order to prevent the perception developing that the missionaries are in fact little more than extensions of a U.S. imperialist effort.
Graham and his fellow co-religionists will wind up creating more problems than they are worth if allowed into Iraq.
— Carl W. Goss
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.