Reader Comments

Editor: Thanks so much for your very enlightening and hopeful article, “Shrewd Pope.” Warren Coats

Editor: Terrific essay and analysis in your “Shrewd Pope” article. I did something similar for Dallas Blog although it was not as comprehensive or as well done. All the best, Tom Pauken

Editor: Your article "Shrewd Pope" opens a keen insight to the Pope's tactical thinking and decisive strategy. Thank you for publishing it. Peter Barfoot

Editor: I read your commentary on Pope Benedict and noted with pleasure that it reflected a commentary of mine, "What the Pope Actually Said", based on a careful reading of his speech. For me, it comes down to the impossibility of any dialogue with Muslims. Who, in fact, is there to dialogue with? There is no central authority to consult, only the "Ummah" or people of Islam. Then, too, there are at least 72 individual Islamic sects, none of which believe the others have any validity and, in many cases, who believe it is perfectly okay to kill Muslims of different views--as we see now in Iraq and just about everywhere else they gather in numbers. The Pope, of course, knows this. It will be interesting to see where he goes from this point as regards Islam and its present state of aggressive Jihad. Regards, Alan Caruba

Editor: Your “Shrewd Pope” is very erudite. Thank God for the new media.
Thanks, Rex

Editor: Thank you for pointing out the Pope’s shrewdness. It is true, but most people couldn't see this. So, thanks for your eloquent explanation. I totally agree, but didn't think about it until I read your article. Judy N

Editor: Wow! Thank you for a reasoned and thought provoking interpretation of the Pope's remarks. William Kohler

Editor: I found your piece “Shrewd Pope” beautifully insightful. Thanks. Donald J. Lisa, Mesa AZ

Editor: We need more articles like “Shrewd Pope.” Lots more, Bev

Editor: Thank You for “Shrewd Pope”! Joe Craven

Editor: I agree with Paul Weyrich's article “Ignorance of U.S. Culture.” We are losing our American culture, because of the way college professors teach students to hate America and because immigrants coming to our country do not want to assimilate. They want our country to accept their beliefs instead. ET

Editor: Regarding Ivan Eland’s “What About Iran’s Nukes?” I sincerely doubt they will get them! This nut and his mullahs would welcome the 12th Imman! R. H. Irish, Edmond, OK

Editor: In response to the article written by Ivan Eland regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions, I believe he leaves out the most important and obvious element. He contention that Iran can be coaxed into peaceful behavior by negotiations ignores the fact that their President views himself as the personal precursor and gateway to the so called "12th Imam"---negotiations with Iran will not alter this, and it is naive to believe they will. The assertion that "the threat of military attack by the United States or Israel is what's driving Iran to seek nuclear weapons in the first place" is utterly foolish and again blames America for deranged behavior. It should also be obvious to Mr. Eland that Iran is not interested in "complete integration" into the world economy, but instead, in forcing their religious system and beliefs on the rest of the world. My prediction is not that the United States or Israel will attack Iran, but that Iran will attack Israel--using some limp excuse to deflect their real reasons--hatred of the Jews and world domination by their pagan religion. Mr. Eland is seriously mistaken in believing that these are reasonable people we are facing, and that they can be "convinced". I wish it were true, but I think only a fool would follow this Chamberlain logic. Roy Brown

Editor: Your media columns by Carey Roberts, Thomas Lindaman and Nathan Tabor remind me of some other observations on the Media giants. Another instance where the media is biased is in their questioning of President Bush. The very same reporters who state Bush misled America into a war in Iraq we should have never been in are asking Bush, why haven't you bombed Iran or North Korea yet. I counted 6 questions in his news conference today where they insisted that Bush attack North Korea or Iran. One by one they wanted to know just why not, and each time President Bush said, diplomacy must be taken first. The President should have said, you ask me why we have not bombed Iran or North Korea but raise hell for bombing Iraq after 17 United Nations Resolution failed? Once again President Bush said diplomacy must first be used. Ed McGarvey

Editor: Where are the faces of the Democratic Party during these final days before the election? They've all but disappeared. Where's Nancy P., Hillary C., Harry R., Ted K., Al G., John K., John C., Charlie R., Barbara B., Henry W., Carl L., Barney F., John D., et al? They spent this past year seeking TV cameras, microphones, and sympathetic media to actively and aggressively attack the President and his policies. Moreover, with their words and what they voted against, they've provided a clear picture of the direction they will take America if they get back in a leadership position. Could it be they are now keeping a low profile, hoping the voters won't reflect or be made to reflect on all that they've said and done? They need to be flushed out from their hiding places and made to defend what they've said and done. Sincerely, Steve Auvil, Macungie, PA