Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s Hillary’s Running:
I agree totally with Mr. Tyrrell’s assessment of Hillary Clinton’s strategy of running for President in 2004. In fact, I’ve been telling friends for months that Clinton would eventually be the Democratic 2004 nominee. I also think that she’ll pick Bill Richardson for her running mate. Richardson certainly is campaigning for the nod. The man has been positively ubiquitous on television lately. He’ll serve two purposes for Clinton: foreign policy expertise — which she sorely lacks, and luring the Hispanic vote to her bosom. I don’t believe that the African Americans are going to be too pleased with her choice, though.
— Mart Martin
I hope you’re right. I’d like to see her get all the votes she can steal — about ten percent nationwide. This assumes we have that many voters who are steadfastly stupid. The question is: Will that finally bring the Democrats to their senses or will they continue to be the home of the blame and hate America crowd?
— Dick Lambert
Eagle Rock, VA
I, too, share your disgust with the prospect of Hillary as presidential candidate.
Yes, she may be able to rally the liberal Dem contributors to bankroll her presidential bid. But do not discount the utter contempt held for her by the majority of Dem voters. I would sooner vote for Trent Lott than Hillary Clinton. I would actively campaign against her.
She is wrapped in a cocoon of sycophants who feed her what she needs. Truman beat Dewey, and anybody, but anybody, will depose of Hill. If the Dems run Hill, they lose the race.
I bet the farm on it.
The question is, who in the hell do they have that has a chance of winning?
— Carol Johnson
Re: Michael Craig’s Masters Sheets:
The condign woman to first be invited to join the Augusta National Golf Club would be Phyllis Schlafly. After that, they should invite Margaret Thatcher. And then Nancy Reagan, Georgette Mosbacher, and Sandra Day O’Connor. Hell, invite all of them at once.
— C. R. Melton
DEATH IS IN THE DETAILS
Re: George Neumayr’s None Dare Call It Idiocy:
I am sure that whatever Mr. Neumayr has to say about The Life Of David Gale is on the mark, but it is frustrating to read all this commentary — on TAP and elsewhere — about the movie without knowing exactly what the plot details are. Pieces like this that present only partial information serve to arouse curiosity, and may lead people to waste their time and money on what is undoubtedly an unworthy film, just to see what the buzz is about.
I think it is now necessary for James Bowman to write a comprehensive review of this movie, laying out the complete story including the twist ending, tearing it apart point by point in his inimitable, sublime manner.
Recently, he has stuck to reviewing mostly foreign films while ignoring our domestic productions. This is understandable, as anything good to be found in cinema now usually comes from somewhere other than Hollywood. However, he is at his most effective and useful when deflating the hype surrounding the latest blockbuster or conversation film. The Life Of David Gale requires his immediate attention.
— Daniel Mayost
Not surprisingly, The Life of David Gale director Parker “laments that minorities receive the penalty disproportionately.”
As Bugs Bunny would say, “What a maroon.”
White murderers are twice as likely to be executed as are black murderers and are executed 12 months more quickly than black death row inmates.
— Dudley Sharp
Resource Director, Justice For All
BEING A MAN
Re: Randy Nemko’s Are White Males Getting Shortchanged?:
The reason no has special help or special days for white men is we don’t need it and we don’t want it. It’s not where you end up in life that’s important but how far you have come. And unless you did it on your own, the trip isn’t worth it. I will struggle and I will fail or succeed, but I will die with smile on my face because what I have accomplished is all my own. Life is too short to whine about.
— Ed Callahan
La Habra, CA
Re: David Hogberg’s Hanoi Harkin:
Only the feeble-minded would believe anything Sen. Harkin has to say. This article leads me to believe that the good people of Iowa have re-elected a useful idiot to the U.S. Senate.
— Harry Sapp
In comparing our confrontations with Iraq and North Vietnam Senator Harkin overlooked (or ignored) important points. The war in Vietnam escalated tremendously when the very unprincipled President Johnson lied to the American people about U.S. ships being fired on in the Gulf of Tonkin. Without that pretext it is possible that we would never have become so deeply involved in that conflict. In the case of Iraq, it is Saddam Hussein who has lied to the world about his weapons of mass destruction and thumbed his nose at one U.N. resolution after the other. Confronting Iraq militarily is being taken because it is in the interests of our national (and other nations’) security. We are not being lied to about the matter. The basis for the action is a matter of public record which has been widely reported. It is appalling that some people are trying to skew the facts to suit their ideology and give little if any thought to the implications of appearing to be enablers of despots like Saddam Hussein.
— Dick Melville
Ozone Park, NY
HISS AND TELL
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s Uncle Stalin:
“I put my money on Stalin.” Malcolm Muggeridge attributed that quote to Walter Duranty of the N.Y. Times, apologist for Stalin’s workers’ paradise! The case of Alger Hiss has taken many forms over the years as liberal media mouthpieces have either tried to invent exculpatory facts for Hiss or just sweep events under the rug. Notwithstanding the fact that he was the key aide at the Yalta conference, which gave Eastern Europe to Stalin, he also leaked to columnist Drew Pearson the order of battle of British troops fighting guerrillas in Greece, and U.S. commitments to Poland during the 1930s somehow made their way via Moscow to Berlin! I was not aware of this new book on Stalin, and thank Mr. Tyrrell for bringing it to readers’ attention.
— Edward Del Colle
President Truman gutted the Armed Forces before he “rearmed the country.” Proof is found in the 35,000 combat deaths our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines incurred in Korea. The defeat of Task Force Smith, and the debacles that followed during the retreat to the Pusan Perimeter in 1950, are Truman’s fault. When the US EIGHTH Army finally broke out of the Pusan Perimeter in September 1950, its artillery batteries had enough ammunition to employ the center guns of the six-gun batteries only, largely because Truman had presided over the demolition of the magnificent Army that had beaten Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in WWII, refusing to authorize adequate expenditures for ammunition, spare parts, and new equipment before the Korean War.
Our boys who tackled North Korean T-34 tanks with inadequate anti-tank weapons, paid the blood price for Truman’s folly. In June 1951, after the North Korean Army had been destroyed, General Van Fleet finally had the Communist Chinese on the run. With Chinese casualties soaring, and mass surrenders of armed Chinese soldiers occurring every day, Truman halted the American offensive and decided to negotiate with the Communists, throwing a hard-won victory away. The negotiations continued for two more blood-soaked years, providing political cover for the Communists to rush supplies, weapons, and reinforcements to buttress their armies and to drag on the war.
I recommend that everyone read General Van Fleet’s testimony to Congress in 1953. You will acquire a different perspective of President Truman after reading it. Unfortunately, the Buck didn’t stop with Truman and he continues to receive undue credit for building up our Nation’s defenses while President Eisenhower’s role in this nation’s ultimate triumph over Communism remains largely ignored.
— Mike Slater
JUMPING THE GUN
Re: John McDonough’s letter in Reader Mail’s Sagebrush Is In:
John McDonough is the type of self-important blowhard that thinks if he pounds away at his erroneous opinion long enough, others will succumb to the length of his blathering and ignore the truth. His letter does nothing but underline his position as an anti-Bush America hater! John is one of those liberals who say they want to see the “smoking gun.” Well, John, the gun only smokes after its been fired. My “President” wants to stop this madman before he pulls the trigger. God Bless George W. Bush and God Bless America!!
— Scott Wright
Poland Spring, ME
Corry’s rebuttal is even sillier than his original nonsense. I liked the part, “The inescapable fact is that neither al Qaeda nor any other terrorist organization has ever used weapons of mass destruction, not out of any humane feelings, of course, but because they didn’t have them.”
I had to think of the Soviet Army commander leading the forces to occupy Afghanistan saying to his critics, “We will control the air because the tribesmen don’t have anything like shoulder mounted Stinger missiles and have never used them.” Why is it that those who oppose our efforts in Iraq “know” (1) that Al Qaeda and Iraq are two separate, mutually exclusive enemies, (2) that because they never have in the past, they won’t in the future, and, (3) the 9/11 attack was not part of an ongoing assault on America that began after the first Gulf War and that there are no other attacks planned?
I fully support freedom of thought and speech and question some of the things our administration does (refusing to seal the Mexican border, for example), but Corry presents no facts, only feelings. Corry, after the next attack, of course, will claim that it wasn’t Iraq or, in the extreme, apologize. The administration must do more, it must do whatever it can to prevent that next attack. Taking out the Taliban, Iraq, Al Qaeda, and the operators of the Becca Valley is a prudent start.
President Lincoln said: “It is better to keep quiet and let them think you are an idiot than to open your mouth and prove them right.” Well, John Corry has now proven the wisdom of that statement twice. First with his intellectually empty piece titled “A Sober Dissent” and then in his childish and equally intellectually void response.
Where to start? How about his statement that the Kurds were gassed by Iranian gas. Well that has been debunked numerous times including on the pages of The American Prowler.
How about his numerous references to intelligence sources, give us all a break. Mr. Corry, have you ever considered that you and your liberal press lackeys are being manipulated. This is the acme of naiveté.
And Corry’s broad swipes at Colin Powell’s U.N. address show Corry’s position is ideological; not factually based. To make the argument that because we have not sent C-130s (I assume you mean specter gun ships) to attack terrorist training bases in Iraq as support for Corry’s belief that Powell’s pictures are of local militia is entertaining if not pathological. Perhaps Corry should call the producers of Top Gun and sell his story. The reality is we can not bring hell fire on every suspected, and mobile, terrorist camp deep in Iraqi territory — that is why we need war! Also, how many “local Iraqis” have guns? Do you think Hussein allows locals to carry guns? Of course not, an intelligent conservative would know that guns are only allowed in free countries not dictatorships.
Finally, dead Iraqis and dead Al Qaeda will deter the Muslim street and its volunteers. Corry’s broad observation of having been to a third world is not evidence of anything. It is rank speculation admittedly based upon a general observation and assumption that all third world cultures will and do respond in similar fashion. In the Gulf War, Iraqis surrendered to anyone they could, including to Italian press, because of the dead Iraqis. Arabs respect power and resolve, qualities Bill Clinton never had, and now we must show our power and resolve. They may not like us, but if they fear us, we will live in peace.
Mr. Corry, you should be ashamed of your willingness to be labeled a commie and a coward. If you are a coward, at least support those who are willing to die in the place of cowards like yourself in the name of keeping America the home of the free and (mostly) brave.
— Steve Shaver
I had a reasoned. point by point reply to Mr. Corry’s reply until I read his flippant “solution” to Saddam Hussein: ” I propose that we let Ariel Sharon handle him. Sharon likes that kind of thing.” Now I can only conclude that he is profoundly unserious, and his argument not worthy of the effort. Mr. Corry must know that if Israel could assassinate the Iraqi dictator, they probably would have done so by now, especially since they have yet to carry out the promised retaliation against him for the scud missile attacks during the 1991 Gulf War. Since that is the case, he must be inviting Prime Minister Sharon to wage a full-scale war against Iraq, a war that other Arab nations might be tempted to join. Should a wider war break out, and the future existence of Israel come into question, does he expect the United States to remain idle? Mr. Corry’s solution seems to invite not only a wider conflict, but even more of the terrorism that he wants to avoid. If on the other hand, Mr. Corry believes that the rest of the Arab world will be awed into quiescence by a display of Israeli military might, then why is he so worried about the Arab reaction to what will be our even greater display of power?
Does he believe that our freedom and security should be bought and paid for with the blood and treasure of others, or, is it that he has a more distasteful motive for suggesting that Israel alone assume the hazards of removing Saddam Hussein? Such sentiments seem more typical of, well, France and Germany.
— Steven Fletcher
San Jose, CA
Corry writes: “Also, the technical means of verification are pretty reliable in the nuclear area, and that makes the charge of Iraqi deceit and deception on nuclear weapons less relevant.”
That must be why we weren’t at all surprised when Pakistan conducted its nuclear tests, eh ?
— Paul Kotik
John Corry speaks of 1.2 billion Muslims with many restless young males. Hey John! Every polygamous society has restless young males — do the math, John. Rich old guys get the all the young babes — po’ boys go live with Osama. American foreign policy has nothing to do with young males with time on their hands and what they do for recreation.
Mainland China, where male babies are cherished and infant girls left to die, has the same problem — a severe imbalance of maybe 35 million young males with no “prospects.” Just about enough AK-47’s in the NORINCO arsenals to give them something to do!?
Add a touch of tyranny, a pinch of despotism and a dose of megalomania and you’d need to bring Mad Albright back from retirement to solve the “restless” part of your dissertation and make sense of it all?.
Add to this imbalance the starvation in North Korea — and you have doubly hungry young men who can vent their anger at the United States — whew!
John — as rational as you try to be — you give the USA too much credit for what we cannot influence.
Boys will be boys.
— Mike Horn
LTC, Military Intelligence
US Army Reserve, ret