THE DAILY STANDARD welcomes letters to the editor. Letters will be edited for length and clarity and must include the writer's name, city, and state.
*1* TODAY I read with great interest Hugh Hewitt's article on the end of the Sixties, because that thought had also crossed my mind. I think for too long many who opposed the Vietnam War came to believe that their protests, and the ideals that flowed from them, were accepted by a majority of Americans. However, in retrospect, it would appear that the passions of the Sixties were an anomaly, and owed as much, if not more, to the fact that we were in Vietnam for over a decade without any tangible results. Should we still find ourselves in Iraq ten years from now, there is no doubt that public opinion would be turned against this war in much the same way public opinion eventually turned against Vietnam.
Having said that, I am perplexed by Hewitt's reference to the Yalies and elites who have controlled the Democratic party since the 1960s. First, I doubt that anyone would consider Lyndon Johnson to be an elite. Second, by the time President Bush finishes his second term in 2008, a Yale graduate will have been our president for 20 consecutive years, 12 of those under Republican presidents. Moreover, I would suspect that many individuals in both parties are products of Ivy League schools, making the elite label equally applicable. Finally, references to Hollywood elites such as Michael Moore obscure the fact that Republicans have their own elites -- e.g., Arnold Schwarzenneger and Curt Schilling. Thus, I think this notion of the Democrats as run by elites should be reexamined, especially since by the latest figures the Democrats would have received the votes of 55 million elites on November 2.
--John McCorry
*2* HUGH HEWITT makes a number of good points, especially about the chance for a new loyal opposition to arise from the old leftist Democratic party. We all hope that this happens, the sooner the better.
However, it is still the '60s leftists who basically control much of the mainstream media. And the foundations they fund and run are just as dangerous today as they were yesterday.
The small but subversive anti-war coalition of ANSWER, United for Peace & Justice, Global Exchange/Code Pink, and others are still run by the old left, some Stalinists, Castroites, Trotskyites, and Hanoiniks. They can and will continue to subvert our nation's political system and to undermine the morale of our fighting forces around the world.
We must not let our guard down at this time as these termites on the left are still attacking the foundations of our democracy. They never give up until the day they die, and my goal is to outlive them all and spit on their graves.
I say this as a member of a Holocaust ravaged family; as a Vietnam/Cambodia journalist during the war; and as the father of a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
We can now enter a period of "nation building" if what is left of the Democratic party wants to rebuild itself into something viable and trustworthy. The Republican party can extend its reach to newer groups as well as older ones, since the problems we face are national, not those of select or elitist groups.
--Max Friedman
*3* HUGH HEWITT'S remarks about Kennedy are well stated and completely accurate. The election of 1960 was the first one I was eligible to vote in, and I went for Nixon. My gut feeling was that any Democrat was trouble and would screw things up. The first screw-up Kennedy made was choosing Johnson as his vice president. After that, everything went downhill. Yes, we got a tax cut, but Johnson took it away. Remember the 10 percent surcharge on income taxes?
Kennedy put these effete snobs in the State Department headed by that great statesman, Dean Rusk, and immediately, we allowed ourselves to be taunted by the Chinese--"the United States is a paper tiger," they sneered. We walked softly and carried a wet noodle. At least Kennedy stood up to Khrushchev in his first big test. Khrushchev would NEVER have pulled that nonsense with Nixon.
Johnson finally pulled this country into the morass of really partisan politics with Vietnam.
I said back then that those little snots in the SDS and the like would someday be running the media and be an influence in politics and society, causing us some real prolems. I thought it would take 25 to 30 years to be purged of them. Well, it took 34 years, and maybe the nightmare of '70s liberalism will finally fade away.
--Jim Cinquina
*4* HUGH HEWITT raises some interesting issues regarding newly elected Senator Ken Salazar (D-Colorado). Salazar will likely flip Republican in 2-3 years. He will do so because the Washington Democrats continue to be ruled by the far-left and their grievance/dependence constituencies. This election will not change their hearts. When he arrives in DC, he will be Zell-shocked by what it means to be a Democrat at the national level.
Salazar stiff-armed Kerry, who barely campaigned in Colorado and never with Salazar as far as I can recall. And, we had no appearances from The Boss, Ben Affleck, Cameron Diaz, or the rest of the left-coast beautiful people. Ken Salazar will find a Democratic party hostile to his core values, and hostile to the gun-toting, God-fearing, independent-minded, Western voters who sent him to Washington.
Ben Nighthorse Campbell was a Democrat. Faced with a choice of going down in flames or switching parties, he chose the latter, and we got a pretty decent senator out of it. I voted for Pete Coors--a decent guy. Any other year, I might have voted for Ken Salazar.
--Tim Cerniglia
*5* IN HIS ARTICLE Where do Terrorists Come From? Jonathan V. Last nicely tags the association between Bush's foreign policy and the unverified increase in terrorist recruits as a non-sequitur. The age of the Madeline Albright tea-and-crumpets approach to global threats is now gone, and with it, the new terrorists it bred.
The pacifism which the left promotes is actually provocative to terrorists, and explains why we experienced the first WTC attack, the Khobar Towers attack, the simultaneous attack on and destruction of our Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies, the attack on the USS Cole that killed our sailors and nearly sank the ship, and yes, 9/11. To each of those attacks (save the last, of course), there was no response worth noting. There being no cost to conducting terror operations, it is hard to see how recruitment was a problem in the Clinton years.
Interestingly, since Bush's supposedly ill-advised cowboy boondoggles in Afghanistan, Iraq, and wherever else terrorist warrens exist, we have somehow avoided any further terrorist attacks on American interests.
So, if the liberals are right and terrorists are indeed adding to their numbers by the truckload, they've chosen to remain strangely silent. But I'm sure the left won't argue that such silence is the result of a failure to plan attacks. After all, Bush's foreign policy would motivate the terrorists all the more, wouldn't it?
--Peter Byrnes, Jr.
*6* I AGREE WITH Jonathan V. Last, there is no evidence that fighting terror serves as a recruiting mechanism for terrorists. There is plenty of evidence, however, that appeasing terror, or even a weak reaction to it, does embolden terrorists and increase their ranks.
In the terror camps of Libya in the 1970's and 1980's, it was common knowledge that the Europeans had entered a secret deal with Arafat's PLO. The Europeans would support Arafat politically as long as he confined terror to killing Jews in Israel and the so-called 'occupied territories.'
The evidence is plain for all to see. Arafat now has his observation box in the United Nations, and is treated like royalty in European capitals, all while Israel is condemned at every turn for daring to defend itself against Palestinian terror.
In short, terror paid dividends. This emboldened the IRA and ETA as well as spurning the multitude of Islamic terrorist organizations we see today. The weak reaction by the United States to increased terror attacks on its interests around the world further encouraged terror and the recruitment of terrorists. They believed they were on the winning team.
But we seriously delude ourselves if we believe that Islamic terror is the product of disperate factions. It is state organised, financed and co-ordinated. Bin Laden, Zarqawi, Hamas, Islamic Jihad et al operate under the command and instruction of high level Arab and other Islamic states and Islamic clerics. Bin Laden did not determine himself what was to be said on his latest tape, or how he was to present himself. He is no more than a field commander who happens to be a useful front man for the moment.
Until we are prepared to properly identify who our enemy is, we have no hope of defeating it. But the current Liberal Fundamentalism in the West prohibits addressing the problem head on.
--John Campbell
*7* THIS RECRUITMENT argument of the left which Jonathan V. Last has dissected shows a profound ignorance of history and warfare. Do you suppose the British noticed more Germans shooting at them after they declared war against Germany? Did German ranks increase? Does that mean it was wrong to resist the Nazis?
The argument also lacks perspective. Estimates of enemy insurgents in Iraq rage from 5,000 to 12,000. Out of a billion or so Muslims that is pretty poor recruiting. Now that the Iraqis have the political will to destroy the insurgent enclaves, those numbers can be expected to attrit dramatically.
Afghanistan is also another example of the failure of jihad. When the war started the jihadis were eager to grab a rifle and go sit in a trench, but when the precision bombing started, the survivors were running hard for Pakistan where many of them were rounded up. When you compare the current "insurgency" in Afghanistan to the resistance mounted against the Soviet invasion twenty years ago, it is unimpressive. The insurgency in Iraq is also weak by comparison. That liberals think we are losing just shows how easily they are routed by weak resistance.
--Merv Benson
*8* AS A LIBERTARIAN with heavy Republican leanings, and being a racehorse trainer in Southern California, where many of the old timers still tell tales of Seabiscuit, I wholeheartedly agree with Noemie Emery's article President Seabiscuit. I will show this to the old-timers I play cards with every morning after workouts are finished. They will love it as well.
--Michael Groomes
*9* AS A RABBI here in Milan, I read William Kristol's Bin Laden vs. Bush with great interest. In the days prior to the U.S. elections, several news sources on Italian television predicted that the American people would not be intimidated by a terrorist thug but would demonstrate their courage by voting for George W. Bush for president. Of course, many here in Italy (along with many others throughout Europe) reacted to this assessment with deep disappointment. They felt that the bin Laden tape had sealed the reelection of a U.S. president many in Europe just don't like. Yet both critics and supporters seemed to agree that, unlike the Spanish, Americans would not submit to foreign policy blackmail.
For my part, I spent election night in a local hotel surfing back and forth between CNN and Italian television. In stark contrast to the exit-poll high that CNN touted, Italian journalists held a "wait and see" attitude, understanding that the bin Laden tape was a direct attempt to influence the American process and that the potential for backlash was great.
As a closing note, let me add that it is not easy being Jewish in Europe (if it ever was). And being the first woman rabbi in Italy has its own challenges. In our tradition, we Jews dedicate ourselves to a concept called tikkun olam, which means "the repair of the world." Under the leadership of George W. Bush, I feel we have the best opportunity offered us in modern times for progress toward that goal.
--Rabbi Barbara Irit Aiello
*10* Averages of The Weekly Standard's Election Predictions:
Bush: 50.3%
Kerry: 48.6%
Bush: 282 EVs
Kerry: 255 EVs
Senate
Republican: 52
Democrat: 47
House
Republican: 231
Democrat: 203
--Vic Fraenckel