Letters and then some

There were two proofs of how ridiculous can you get in the Roundtable letters of the Spokesman-Review. William Byrd and his letter titled, "Get a clue about the military" and Steve Hintyesz who praises, "French president gets it." The problem is, neither writer got something important, like the facts. Byrd chose to personally attack a previous writer for her "anti-war rant." What he did not choose to do was do the necessary research that even Robert Scheer in his own republished to the Spokesman-Review (10 November 2007 edition) had. Or for that matter, self-admitted liberal Froma Harrop had in her own republished column which discusses the GW administration being asleep at the economic switch. I guess it takes the old left (let's blame GW for everything) crowd to provide a valid justification for why he really can be blamed...for everything. By comparison, Byrd definitely turns a blind eye to any facts that might cast doubt on his uber loyalty to GW. So, the substance of the letter; Byrd writing: we shut up Daffy Khadafi. Following our invasion of Iraq, the GW administration made some deals with the devil of a terrorist sponsoring state. Mhuammar Khadafi was held responsible by both France and the U.S. for terrorist bombings of various aircraft. One of those aircraft, a French plane leaving the Niger region was carrying my cousin Don Warner home. That aircraft never made it back and my cousin never came home alive. But, and this is the kicker, even though Khadafi sponsored terrorism and both he and his country were given severe penalties for doing so, he could be forgiven his terrorist history as long as he gave up his WMD. In fact, from what I could tell from editorials relating to the time, terrorism was never a subject for discussion. But, I shouldn't doubt that trade deals were. Which puts Froma Harrop's column, on a more international level, where she speaks of GW taking care of businessmen, exactly. We shut up Khadafi only by our creating trade agreements with him. We did so despite his history of exploiting terrorism as a weapon against the west.

We took out the wacky Iraqi, so Byrd goes on to intone. Yes, and it needed doing. However, there happened to be some cautionary voices at the time GW was beating the drums of war, that he might in fact not be the man for the job. Since the time we took out the wacky Iraqi, GW has since vindicated those cautionary voices. Iraq became quite a mess and the Iraqi government has failed to govern. Byrd cheers on the idea of our going after the zany Irani. Well, with what? And how much further would it destabilize an already unstable middle east. Robert Scheer on Pakistan: Pakistan's 'support' was always a mirage. I'll concur, Musharraf isn't cracking down on actual extremists but only on people who are most likely to threaten his hold on power. He isn't truly dealing with violent terrorists who now have a home on his borders with Afghanistan, he doesn't want to share power with a valid opposition. And yes, he has WMD. Isn't Musharraf a bigger concern right now that what the Iranian president may or may not do with enriched uranium? And by the time we get to Korea and Kim Jong Il I'll have a name for him to (Byrd). GW had all of 7 years to effectively go after Kim Jong Il and hasn't done so yet. When we have removed the threats to our commerce and oil supply, the price of gas will drop like a rock (Byrd). Not so fast buddy. Ms. Harrop reminds us that China is a major player for oil and gas and it isn't likely that the prices of oil and gas supplies will drop like a rock any time soon. And the reasons are, that there is a limit to what is called fossil fuel. And GW has been resistant, as Ms. Harrop noted, to truly creating an energy independent nation. Do we go to war with China to end their threat to our commerce and assure that the price of oil and gas drops like a rock? Don't think so. It is not in GW's or the corporate interests cards. Byrd was right to state that the military exists to kill people and break things. What he could have gone on to argue and didn't, the military is not a jack of all trades capable of handling the necessary diplomacy after the war is over. Given what the old left had to say, it is one thing for a hot head to tell his fellow American to get behind this country, it is another matter for the hot-head himself to recognize that GW hasn't got behind the country he was elected to govern, to date.