Clark has no place to criticize
Re: Mr. Chris Jordan’s letter, “Clark comments were correct” (July 6): He agrees with Gen. Wesley Clark’s statement that Sen. McCain riding in a fighter plane isn’t a qualification to be president.
Mr. Jordan did you forget that Clark ran for president in 2004? What qualified him to be president? Is it because he is an expert “Monday morning quarterback” when he appears on television discussing the Iraq war? He has all of the solutions to the war after the fact.
This nation is fortunate that we didn’t have generals and admirals with the mentality of Wesley Clark during World War II; otherwise we would be living under the swastika and/or the rising sun.
Gene Scolavino
Spokane
While trying to defend McCain, Mr. Scolavino steps into the middle of something that demonstrates an utter ignorance. That is, to use a World War II scenario as a means to be highly dismissive of General Clark. It can not be said that Clark served in World War II, but it can be said that he had been in the service certainly long enough to have known about Vietnam, where presidents and politicians micromanaged the war rather than allowing the generals to do their work. It is Vietnam after all that flavors Senator McCain’s approach to Iraq. If we just hadn’t left Vietnam so precipitously, then Vietnam would be a thriving democracy today. McCain’s “Vietnam syndrome” is to ignore the fact that we couldn’t make the Vietnamese military forces fight for freedom against the communist Viet Cong. Nor could we curtail the corruption that would ultimately help bring down the South Vietnamese government. Vietnam was a war we lost because we assumed that we knew what was best for a culture quite alien to our own. That all we had to do was assist the French colonialists in handing them back a nation called Vietnam and on the way deal a death blow to the spread of communism. It is what we didn’t know about an Eastern culture and its nationalistic aspirations that made it entirely possible for us to lose Vietnam. Our collective mentality helped us to lose that war. And a much embittered McCain spends years in office thinking in terms of what if. Even further, as he goes on the campaign trail, exercises the same what if for Iraq.
What Mr. Scolavino also has a problem with is that Senator McCain himself was a “Monday morning armchair quarterback” who offered his opinions on the war and solutions after the fact. That is, while he was in the Senate. And was among those in Congress that GW simply preferred to ignore until he got dragged kicking and screaming into producing a “surge” in the better late than never category. Until the “surge” the insurgents that GW and Veep Cheney were in denial about pretty much had the upper hand. With the “surge” there was also a corresponding uptick in violence. And how many months did it take for the “surge” to quell the violence? But, how about the sort of political progress that the “surge” was supposed to produce? And why is McCain so insistent that an American presence should remain in Iraq well into his own presidency? Do remember, that in 2004, we presumably had handed back to the Iraqis, their sovereignty and therefore their right of self-determination. It is not up to us to determine the future of that people. That was our mistake of Vietnam. They don’t share our beliefs, they don’t have our concepts of Democracy. And if they have decided that we can do the heavy lifting (shades of Vietnam) while they sit around refusing to fight for their own nation; well, there isn’t much we can do then but to walk away and let them figure out their own futures. World War II was different in that we were western cultures doing battle against fanaticism. We had to win, no question about it. But now that we are dealing with a more amorphous fanaticism that can pop up anywhere and give guys like Cal Thomas a panic attack; how do you fight this fanaticism that will use your means of dealing with it as a weapon against you? Religious fanaticism is the hardest of all to fight and win against.
Patriotism isn’t poison
Putting patriotic and poison into the same sentence(“Patriotism poison needs warning label,” July 4) tells a lot about this character. Stomping on the flag, stomping on soldiers’ graves and clobbering religion in one article isn’t enough for this liberal; he mentions all the liberties taken away from Americans.
From where I sit, I have not lost one liberty, but I have been spared another attack from extremists, and that makes me comfortable enough to wave “Old Glory” from the highest point I can. I am proud everyday of the people in the armed forces, who protect me and protect the right to print this unpatriotic drivel from the left. I am proud of this president’s protection.
If everyone hates America, then why are there lines of millions trying to get in? No sir, you are way off base, as is the S-R for printing such garbage on a national day of patriotism. The only religion you bow down to is socialism and that takes away patriotism, self-esteem, honor and feeling proud.
I also have no superiority complex. I am proud of all the democracies that America has started and supported in the World since World War II.
Cliff Borns
Spokane
Obviously, the editorialist on 4 July 2008 managed to thoroughly gore Mr. Borns ox. So while he is lathering up and getting hot under the collar that there can be people out there who’d dare disagree with his world view and he determines that the Spokesman-Review is repugnant for daring to publish something so disagreeable as this fellow’s editorial, he manages to do two things in his letter: prove his “superiority complex” and then play victim at the same time. That is, a victim of the fact that this is, believe it or not, a democracy. There can’t be a greater “socialist” argument than proclaiming that the “day of dissent” that made all men free, also means that he would like nothing better than to censor the dissent that is disagreeable for purposes of consumption. As presented loudly and clearly in his letter. There can be nothing patriotic or flag waving with meaning, if he harps, whines and complains about the fact that not only is he free to read what he likes and publish as a letter what ever he wishes, but that others of opposing views can do the same. And thus, the crude attacks and name calling found in his letter. Nor do I see an ounce of “self-esteem” or pride in what he writes. Not if he fears so much the fact that an American democracy can indeed protect the right of people to express their views “without reprisal.” As obviously, Mr. Borns wishes no less than to engage in reprisals against the editorialist in question, by again, name calling and crude attacks. So, what does he love about this nation, anyway?
