Letters to the Editor
rphillips111
Published Letters: 189 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Iraq and Roll Over
[Read the article: Iraq and roll over]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mr. Brooks' piece is perceptive and on the mark, I think, as far as it goes. But he has left one very big factor out. The war in Iraq is being fought, essentially, because of the Bush policy of Pacifying Iraq and ruling the Middle East from the largest embassy in world now inder copnstruction in Baghdad.
The Democrats are using public opposition to the war to discredit Republicans and the president, hoping to win the 2008 elections. But they have in fact bought the Bush policy: Democrats too, intend to stay in Iraq, which requires the war to continue. The media has reported the White House has back channel communication with Hillary and others in an effort to keep the policy once Bush is Gone. And Hillary has announced that she would like to bring the troops home, but "can't" (won't) promise it.
The best way to end the war is change the policy, and that would be easy. Defund the huge embassy in Baghdad. That would signal we do not plan to rule the Middles East, and we do not plan a permanent stay and bases in Iraq. But the Dems are not even discussing that course. It's all posturing, while people die.
Randolph Phillips
Shiloh, GA 31826
706-846-2592
-
reinventing the Cold War Army
[Read the article: Does a bigger Army mean another Iraq?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The most important requirement in electing the next president is making sure we do not elect someone dedicated to spreading democracy around the world at the point of a gun, and making sure we do not reintroduce the draft, or its collectivist evil twin "Universal National Service". Republicans like McCain and Democrats like Evan Bayhr, Froggy Mikulski, likely Obama, and a host of others would love to do it. "Bigf Sister" Hillary would probably go for it too.
The institution which allowed--practically insured--Wietnam was only rooted out of national life by the disaster Vietnam was. How grotesquely ironic it will be if the disaster of Iraq gives the regimenters their favorite program back.
NO DRAFT! NO WAY!
-
Yes, the Dems blew it . . so far
[Read the article: How the Democrats blew it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is a perceptive article. I too, think many democrats basically agree with Bush's middle east policy. That's why the leading presidential candidates have basically signed on to a long term stay in Iraq. They are co-operating with the impending attack on Iraq, too, by their silence if nothing else.
Yes, Democrats want to use public disenchantment with the Bush policy to defeat the republicans next year. And yes, they will be Bush Light if elected.
For myself, much as I'm opposed to the Bush doctrine and his war, I can't vote for candidates who claim to be against a policy they have helped create and will not change if elected.
I didn't vote for President in 2004, and it looks like I won't have a candidate in 2008. I'm not alone, either.
-
Yes, The Dems Blew it . . .so far
[Read the article: How the Democrats blew it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sesander,
I read Mr. Shapiro's article and responded to it, mistakenly referring to him as "Mr. Brooks". To some extent, he criticized the dems while excusing them. Mr. Kamiya has a better take on their failure.
Eisenhower won the Presidency in 1952 in part because he promised to end an unpopular war--The Korean War. Richard Nixon claimed to have a plan to end the Vietnam War. That helped him defeat a Hubert Humphery who played it safe and supported the status quo, much as the dems are doing right now.
I don't hear either Hillary, Obama, or Edwards promising to end the Iraq war.
The Democrats are criticizing the Iraq war even as they apparently support the Bush agenda of a long stay in Iraq, ruling the middle east from the Baghdad embassy, and even okaying the impending attack on Iran. I'm surprized they haven't taken the lead in calling for reinstating the draft, or rather something infinitely worse--Compulsory universal national service.
And I, too, think it is possible their dishonest posturing might lead to a Republican victory in the 2008 Presidential race.
-
Congress to New York . . .
[Read the article: Congress to New York (and Chicago and L.A.): Drop dead]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am delighted by any move against "sanctuaries" for illegal aliens, so long as it is constitutional. And the courrts have ruled Congress can cut off federal funds to a wide range of governmental entities, or require them to follow certain regulations in order to receive the funds. That is how the 55 mph speed limit was imposed, or example.
There is no justification for rewarding those who harbor, hire, or give comfort to people illegally in this country.
-
Of course, its mercenary
[Read the article: Red, white and mercenary in Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mr. Blumenthal said it all when he mentioned Bremer.
Issuing order 17 is typical of his management of Iraq.
After all, his main aim was to wrest control of Iraq's oil from the Iraquis and put it in the hands of "the coalition of the willing" who invaded Iraq. He was busy granting companies contracts to do anything else.
Bremer dissolbved the Iraqui army, now considered a major mistake. The ethnic cleasning of the sunnis began under Bremer, too, which we have assisted in since day one of the occupation. And just as important, Bremer set up the parliamentary form of government which is so unworkable and does the least to protect minorties. A two house system,with one house based on provinces instead of population, was the original plan but Czar Bremer made sure it wasn't implemented.
Bremer and the neocons who gave us Iraq should dis in jail.