Mr. Stone’s Letter to the Editor on 7/14/03 is an affront to human decency and logic. First of all, I find it despicable to imply that a PJB journalist is an adulterer simple because Mr. Stone disagrees with Mr. Kerr’s opinion (“But I’m sure you… would rather hide in hallway anterooms with young interns.) Unfortunately, it is always easier to argue emotionally rather than logically.
To score emotional points, it’s easy to link pro-Saddam groups with terrorists who “look forward to strapping on 10 pounds dynamite to blow themselves” up (Stone 7/14/03). It would be more difficult to actually study the situation logically and to understand Middle East politics and religion. If one spent the time, one would realize that the pro-Saddam elements of Iraq are wholly secular and even anti-religious. Saddam’s Baath faction was in competition with the fundamentalist elements of Iraqi society prior to the war. Fundamentalist terrorists have always been a threat to Saddam’s Baath establishment. That is precisely one of the reasons that President Bush (41) left Saddam in power in 1991, to play these groups off of each other. If there is any connection between these two segments of Iraqi society, it is because the recent war pushed them together. On their own, they are religious and political opposites.
I am also so tired of right-wing extremists using President Clinton as a scapegoat for every evil in the world (“…the previous administration probably helped usher in 9/11”). Need I remind Mr. Stone that it is the current administration that has been “Stone”-walling the 9/11 Commission?
Of course, whenever logic fails, try to score another emotional point by bringing up Clinton’s adultery when defending the muddied situation in Iraq (“Bill Clinton’s philandering with an intern is so much ‘better’ than sending people off to fight and die.” Again, I am tired of these default attacks on Clinton and, again, I apparently need to point out the facts. While one of the two biggest complaints about Clinton is infidelity, the icon of family-values, President Reagan, “got away” with his out of wedlock affair (Reagan’s daughter Patti was born in 1952; a mere seven months after his marriage to Nancy). The second common complaint against Clinton is that he lied. We could make an endless list of Democratic and Republican presidents who lied, but let us only mention Watergate for this argument.
Bill Clinton’s two offenses are not unique to him, so let us drop the emotional attacks on Clinton and Kerr and attempt to use facts to discuss the current administration’s failings and the current problems in Iraq.
[This was in response to the following:
Regarding We’re in for the fight of our lives, Bob Kerr’s June 18 column: Yes, people are still getting killed in Iraq. Gee, I guess that must mean the liberal slant you want to portray is somehow more worthy of consideration than the Bush administration’s position. Bill Clinton’s lying about his philandering with an intern is so much better than sending people off to fight and die. Wow, what powerful insight! What persuasive logic!
Bob, even you should have enough common sense to admit that there continue to be fanatical members of various Muslim groups who will remain pro-Saddam and anti-Israel and anti-America no matter how much education and acceptance of differences we have. They look forward to strapping on 10 pounds of dynamite to blow themselves and the enemy of Islam into their version of paradise.
Despite liberal protestations to the contrary, the previous administration in Washington probably helped usher in 9/11. Ironically, the notion of a country so morally corrupt that its leader engages in numerous episodes of extramarital sex leads the fanatical Muslim to believe we should all be (at least) castrated.
But I’m sure you and others of your ilk would rather hide in hallway anterooms with young interns, instead of facing the horrors of stopping a mad dictator, his fanatical followers and other terrorists. Perhaps you think some form of appeasement would bring us peace.