Reader Comments
Issue 119 - November 5, 2008

Editor: Perhaps your “Congratulations General Odierno?” might have touched a little on the rationale for a civilian, the President, to make the final decisions in war, and the problem when that person does not have the capacity or the inclination to weigh the evidence brought before him. It is true that not all of it was presented to him at the time, but then his staff failed in producing it; but he chose them and stuck with them until the end. Perhaps it is the case of personal loyalties put above those to the nation. In the end it could be that the political concerns of the President outweighed the military concerns and, seemingly, the welfare of the Nation. But is this not what the Democrats have been saying all the time? Carlos Chardon

Editor: “Congratulations General Odierno?” is a very interesting piece. I have some disagreements--like the suggestion that any group of people is always right, because of the positions they hold (not a truly conservative position.)  The military establishment was simply wrong on the surge--even Bob Woodward gives President George Bush credit for that.  Nor, as I understand, was Donald Rumsfeld reluctant to overthrow Saddam. But there are also very important points, like the limited influence of the neo-cons.  The expansive democracy policy came from the White House – President Bush and Condoleezza Rice, who constantly had her finger in the wind and who thought the Arabs' situation was similar to that of blacks in the segregated south.  Also, the Middle East experts they consulted apparently told the WH what it wanted to hear. I co-hosted a brunch this weekend (with the ultimate aim of putting together a group that would take on the Global War On Terror "group-think," including Iraq and al Qaida.)  One person there was a former Bush speechwriter.  He stressed Bush's deep religiosity--Bush, he thinks, thought he was carrying out God's will. Laurie Mylroie

Editor: Regarding “Congratulations General Odierno?” it is getting to the point that people are embarrassed to admit they are conservative thanks to G. W. Bush. Peggy

Editor: "Reagan Right on Government" by Scott Rasmussen is completely to the point on why conservatives are jumping from the Republican ship.  For the longest time, conservatives have been the core support of the Republican Party.  Yet, the primary process ended up splitting the conservative vote amongst three candidates, making pretty much only one candidate viable by virtue of capturing most of the moderate voters (given how quickly Guliani restricted his campaigning and eventually giving up a losing battle). A Fox News political strategist and commentator basically hit the nail on the head when he said that McCain would currently be 10 points ahead in the polls if he had just went up against the bailout bill.  McCain didn't go up against it but instead decided to so forcefully support it as if he was the great social engineer himself. McCain's problem has never been being able to convince independents and moderates to vote for him.  As a matter of fact, both those groups are McCain's base.  It has been basically the core conservatives of the Republican Party that just cannot stand McCain's big government, socialist fix (that will end up making things worse and not better on the whole). For, McCain now is pretty much putting the nails in the coffin of the Republican Party.  With party members like him, many are asking, "What is the difference?"  With Barak Obama, you will get socialism.  But with John McCain, when the chips are down, you also get socialism.  So, one candidate is dealing candidly and honestly with his base - keeping his support in line while the other candidate markets himself dishonestly, saying he is against something but when the chance comes to prove it... he ends up supporting it instead.  The latter is, unfortunately, McCain. He has lost the high ground on conservative principles - which he was shaky with in the first place (remember the Immigration Reform Act of 2007?). We would have a very good race for President if we had two truly committed candidates.  Instead, there is a good chance Obama will win because the leftist will always win any battle that is against a moderate.  Moderates say there are exceptions to Reagan's ideas and principles.  It is this lack of commitment that will see so many Republicans - especially conservative candidates - lose support that they once enjoyed and could count on. Republicans had their chance but having become K-street Republicans, government elitists, and pseudo-socialists, basically, the conservatives are disenfranchised and will skip lines or stay home yet again - just like they did in 2006.  That's the biggest indicator of an Obama likely win. Cordially, Will Tinney, Aiken, South Carolina

Editor: “Advice To Gov. Palin” by Angelo Codevilla is excellent, but useless unless she gets the article in hand. I suggest you enlist a person who plans to go to a very soon campaign site and have that person personally give the Governor a copy of the article, even if it is off that person's home printer. Just because you sent it out has no bearing on whether or not she will ever see it, or whether or not one of the minions your author spoke about would give her the information from the article. We need Sarah NOW, unleashed. Regards, Richard Jauch, Camano Island, Washington

Editor: Thank you for the interesting and informative article linking Obama and Ayers. “Ayers and Obama” by Jeffrey Folks helps to note where Obama has been tutored in his ideology. Thanks again, Dan Pierce, Lehi, Utah

Editor: “Ayers and Obama” by Jeffrey Folks is a great article. It's sad that most of today's media sources have ignored the truth about Obama and continued to sing his praises despite the troubling facts about his relationships and his extreme left wing agendas. Bill Hines

Editor: Regarding Jeffrey Folks’ “Ayers and Obama,” Barack Obama was legal counsel for ACORN 13 years ago. This year, Obama gave ACORN $80,000. With Obama's grant, there is a connection. ACORN is now attempting to dodge any wrongdoing on improper and/or illegal voter registrations. Obama has surrounded himself with less than exceptional leaders of any community. Why did Obama provide ACORN $80,000 from his Presidential campaign? Why did ACORN use convicted felons to fill out voter registrations? Sen. Obama, were you aware convicted felons were working for ACORN on voter registrations? Did Obama provide any taxpayers' funds from legislated grants to ACORN? Obama should stop any and all campaign and/or taxpayers' funds to ACORN now. Obama, if you are not guilty, cut any and all funding now; calling for a Federal independent investigation of all the ACORN improper and/or illegal voter registrations. Americans’ most precious right is the right to vote and be counted appropriately and legally. Should we consider the wacky people whom Obama has become so aggressively friends with? Sen. Obama, come clean. Do not allow ACORN or others to steal my vote or anyone else's vote. Oscar Y. Harward

Editor: Regarding Paul Driessen’s “Anti-Energy Agenda,” how can one explain to our young that global warming is natural climate cyclical change without inciting fear in our young - against self-indulgence or scare tactics claiming that we are to blame for this doom? I am so ticked that all the doomsayers, many receiving federal grants of our tax money, spout figures only to confuse our young, which our young profess to be concerned about but who contribute little for its cause. Hypocrisy is running rampant with our young and other groups and I'm so sick of this. Please help me! Pete Hammerich

Editor: I agree with Daniel Pipes’ “Counting Islamists” that it's difficult to estimate the number of radical terrorists. However, I believe that the number who exhibit radical behavior is much higher. All over the world they try to inhibit freedom of speech, such as thousands rioting because they thought a cartoon insulted Mohammed. Some author wrote a book they didn't like so they put him on a death list. A teacher gave a child a teddy bear and it was interpreted as an insult. Every country that has taken them in and given them a home eventually regrets their actions... England , France, Holland, etc. I have never heard a Muslim recant the clause in the Koran that declares that any infidel should be given the chance to embrace Islam, if not he shall be killed. That covers about 3,000,000,000 people. I'm one of them. The thought that they are supposed to be a loving people is difficult to believe. Whenever an Arab-American appears on a news show, he always deplores the acts of terrorists but the next word out of his mouth is... BUT....Then we hear the justification. When 9/11 occurred, Muslims were celebrating in Dallas. I've heard that this happened in other cities as well. I would be happy if they were the wonderful people that Colin Powell describes but I find it difficult to ignore their history. Elaine Coyle