Dems let par­ti­san­ship trump rea­son

The Washington Times Weekly - - Letters To The Editor -

Count me one of those who does not ap­prove of Ge­orge Bush’s Iraq pol­icy, and I have to ad­mit that there is a part of me that wants us to pull out of Iraq, though not be­cause I be­lieve we have lost. No, I want the Amer­i­can peo­ple to ex­pe­ri­ence the re­sults of the Democrats’ de­lib­er­ate cam­paign to de­stroy Ge­orge Bush through crit­i­cism of his war on ter­ror. We are a na­tion of slow learn­ers.

There is no choice but to surge, and Pelosi, Reid, et al were call­ing for this same troop surge not six weeks ago. Why the change?

If we as­sume that we are los­ing in Iraq, as the Democrats and the news me­dia claim, there can only be three re­sults of a surge: the surge has no ef­fect, we con­tinue to “lose,” and we pull out; the surge fails, we pull out, and Iraq falls into chaos; or the surge works and we and Iraq win.

There­fore, if the Democrats suc­ceed in stop­ping a surge, the re­sults can only lead to three things: an oil-rich Shi­ite pup­pet state of Iraq that sup­ports Hezbol­lah and ex­ports ter­ror to the U.S., a civil war that drags Arab Sunni states into a war against an al-Sadr/Ira­nian theoc­racy and a blood­bath; or Iraq be­comes a vi­able state and a bul­wark against Is­lamo-fas­cism. If you be­lieve the Democrats and news me­dia, which out­come is most likely to oc­cur and which po­lit­i­cal party “wins” in 2008 if Bush’s Iraq pol­icy fails?

I am un­happy with Bush be­cause he did not make this a real war.

He did not con­vince the na­tion that is will be a long, dif­fi­cult war, and he did not make the case that this war on ter­ror is a mat­ter of na­tional sur­vival.

I am an­gry at Democrats and the me­dia be­cause they have al­lowed par­ti­san­ship to trump rea­son and pa­tri­o­tism for power, mere po­lit­i­cal power. J. V. Fitzsim­mons Hick­ory, North Carolina

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.