Letters to the Editor
-
@(~~~~)
No has an actual response. Ok thanks. At least NOW you're being intellectually consistent.
There were several responses, and while I don't know if they are "actual" under whatever criteria you're rattling in your noggin, they made sense to me.
Let's explore your comparison:
President Bush announced today a "Global War on Fire", after a terrible fire in New York killed around 3000 people.
"We must not allow fire to destroy our freedoms. We will do whatever it takes to put out all fires everywhere," said Bush.
Although the suspected arsonists were from Saudi Arabia, Bush rushed as many of the nation's firefighters to Iraq. The tactics his top fire officials proposed involved setting many fires in populated areas, so that, at minimum, ten times as many Iraqi citizens were burned to death as the terrible conflagration in New York. "You have to fight fire with fire," said Bush. Not only that, more firefighters were killed setting and putting out fires in Iraq than were New Yorkers killed in that terrible blaze.
Pundits Hagan and Kristol recently suggested that the firefighters were not trying hard enough to defeat fires in Iraq and they should stay there getting killed until all fires are put out. Firefighters who suggested that setting more fires to put them out was not the most effective way of dealing with them, but were derided as cowards and as being "soft on fire."
Does that sound stupid to you? Then don't compare apples and oranges.