Reader Email Archive

APRIL 3, 2008 — RE: Certain Articles
Honest and accurate reporting / writing with a touch of Hollywood as a comedian?

"from the world's richest superpower to a poor laughing stock?"

You did learn better then this? Let it go let it go ... the hate will end up killing you ... not the USA sir. —D.B.

APRIL 2, 2008 — RE: Latest Column
Wow, Richard; you sound like you may just become a superdelegate for the Republican party!

I agree with most of your accessment, Mc Cain is a sane alternative to what us Republicans have been subjected to for the last 7 years. I do not agree that America is a poor weak power with no international stature. Just not true. And by my soul and those I associate with, it never will be. —C.R.

MARCH 29, 2008 — RE: Latest Column
McCain is either lying about Al Qaeda & Iran, or very mixed up, possibly because of listening to the people around him. He's getting scarier, not better. The presence of Norman Podhoretz is especially troubling. He also used some sanded-off Jonah Goldberg rhetoric Let's hope he meant what he said about war. Almost everyone around him hasn't learned any lessons from Iraq, and are gung-ho for war with Iran. I'll keep reading your columns, even though the McCain, and "The media are doing a good job" columns make me cringe. —M.W.

MARCH 28, 2008 — RE: Observations about McCain
Your recent paean to McCain was impressive in terms of style and conviction, but misguided. The things that you say about him are, for most part, factually true. But the overriding, and by far the most important fact is stated near the end of of your article, namely: "McCain's votes in the Senate are often appalling". It stands to reason that anyone whose votes in the Senate are often appalling would make an appalling president. Moreover, even in the unlikely event that his position on issues will be transformed to become less appalling, he will still be beholden to the party that created our present appalling mess, with all its machinery still in place. The only way to undo this appalling record is in disbanding that machinery. The Democratic candidates may not be ideal - nobody is. But that's no excuse to settle for the truly appalling. —A.Z.

MARCH 27, 2008 — RE: Latest Column
One of the reasons Barak Obama understands the racial issue so well is that he was raised here in Hawaii, where everyone belongs to a minority group. That does wonders for your perspective. —J.L.

MARCH 20, 2008 — RE: Latest Column
Well written-from your heart and your head. And that is something we need integrated so that we have thinking hearts and feeling minds about the issues that really count. —B.C.

P.S. I still reread an essay you wrote in 1978 for my inspiration--"The Last Angry Men". And I received a response from one of the men you wrote about then, the Washington Post reporter who lost his job because of his beliefs-for unions.

MARCH 20, 2008 — RE: Your article on Senator Obama's speech
I appreciated your views on Senator Obama's speech and it's relationship to our nation's historical racial situation.

It was a hopeful, open speech. I had some thoughts I wanted to share with you as I read your final sentences:

"This is not a sectional issue ... nor is it a partisan issue. This is not even a legal or legislative issue alone. ... We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the Scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public schools available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who represent him ... then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?"

I was proud to be a young American when I listened to that all those years ago. I am proud of the progress we have made since then. I was proud as an old American to hear a black man, a politician, match them last Tuesday.

Last month, I had the privilege, as a white man, to give the opening welcoming remarks at the Sunday service of Hoskins Chapel in Big Sandy, Texas, one of four black churches in this small East Texas town. Hoskins Chapel will celebrate it's 122nd year as a congregation this month. The context of the service was the church's observance of Black History Month. The keynote speaker, a leading member of a large, historic black church in nearby Winona, Texas, astounded me with his presentation. The members and visitors to Hoskins Chapel that morning were equally astounded and moved by his presentation as well. Their reaction added to my feeling as well. He first reminded us of the many contributions that black people have made to our society and our world, mentioning many of the names that have now become familiar. But then, he launched into a series of statistics that showed how disappointed he was in current black society in America. Crime, unemployment, dropout rates, childbirth out of wedlock, etc., he went on and on! The congregation responded to these hard statements with fervor and agreement, with the typical lively interaction you see between speakers and their congregations in black churches. He did not blame white America or bemoan the lack of programs and funding, but rather, challenged his audience to take the responsibility to lead their families to turn these around and not wait for government to rescue them. He hammered on the breakdown of black families, pointing out that 5 out of 6 black families in the days after WW2 had both parents present, and that now, with government checks substituting for fathers, that that figure now stood at 2 out of 6. He pointed out that very few black children were in church anymore, even pointing out their dearth in our midst that day. He challenged the men to lead their families and show them the way. He was well aware of the advance in political and societal progress, and he was proud of that progress, as you related in your own statements above, but he also saw an increased poverty of spirit that cried out for change. And he didn't appeal to a party or a politician, but to a people. All in all, quite an astounding message and an astounding response by the congregation.

I share this all as a reminder that acceptance, toleration, integration, equality, political opportunity and representation are not the only benchmarks that need barometers. At least that was the message I got that day at Hoskins Chapel. —

MARCH 16, 2008 — RE: Latest Column
Your column calls attention to the underlying reason for the broadest problem in the miserable current status of our governance and political discourse; namely, the lack of honest, principled leadership. In surveying the recent writings of Jim Hoagland, Albert Hunt, James Grant, Andrew Sullivan, David Brooks and many others, a large theme emerges: Despite enormous problems - Iraq, financial crisis, health care, nuclear proliferation, and so many others - Bush is "goofily happy" (per Maureen Dowd) and dreaming of the brown, brown grass of Texas. At least Cheney is smart enough to stay out of sight. The Democrats control both houses of Congress but are content to let the clock run out on the Bush crowd. The candidates routinely twist, distort and exaggerate every minute comment from any of the opponent's "surrogates" (don't you have to love that word?) while issuing the blandest and most meaningless statements on the big issues. Are they willing to say and do almost anything to further their election prospects? That goes without saying. Let's not debate Iran, North Korea, gun control, deficits - might lose votes there - instead let's joyously attack the rantings of "religious leaders" who have little or no connection to the candidates. Hell, let's throw the kitchen sink at them! We're entitled to win this thing because, well, we're entitled, dammit. Just install us in office and we'll tell you what's good for you then. I think it was LBJ who said some men want to get elected to do something and some want to be somebody. In the final scene in "The Candidate" Robert Redford, who has just won a long, nasty campaign for Senator, says to his handler "What do we do now?"

As James Grant says in the WaPo today, there's got to be a better way. —A.S.

MARCH 14, 2008 — RE: To Hell With Fallen Heroes
"Mihi ignosce," or excuse me in Latin. Allow me to wade in with my own female perspective in this matter. I have to agree with Mr. Reeves that Spitzer's crime is "not victimless" because there exists an aggrieved wife with three young daughters. The prostitute is the least 'victimized' person here. She did her job and got paid very well for it. Predictably, she will make appearances, record some songs, write a book, and with luck, marry Zsa Zsa Gabor's demented husband. Or someone of that ilk.

But Spitzer's wife now has to get checked for sexual disease, his quiet daughters now will be stalked ad infinitum (just thought I'd throw in another trite Latin phrase), the family finances now a bit dented from 'miscellaneous' expenses, his own future murky as the fund transfers he executed many a time. All this for a short, spectacular romp (one has to assume by that price!) with a stranger.

There is no excuse for his behavior. The proverbial 'call of the wild' is not a call married men should act upon. Men who use prostitutes may get the much-needed ego boost or power trip with a busty hireling, but they also seriously endanger their spouse's health, their marriage, their profession, their reputation and most of all, they stand to lose their children's love and respect. Is it worth it?

As the great Einstein once remarked, "Only two things are infinite: the great universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former." —M.T.

MARCH 14, 2008 — RE: Reeves, you have this whole thing wrong
The crime the governor committed is not "victimless," as many liberals would have it. Here we go again with this "liberal" crap as though everything conservatives do is okay-like a senator soliciting sex in a men's room? The obvious victims of his behavior are his family. Using a prostitute's service is not a crime and the most obvious victim here is the prostitute. Don't forget, Spitzer and his wife are multi-millionaires.

And if there are obvious lessons to this mess, they are these:

• Never stop wondering and asking why people want power and what they are likely to do with it. You may think the press is too tough on political figures. I would say we are not tough enough. Using this philosophy, eventually we would have no leaders and no one aspiring to be a leader.
• Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.Isn't this old axiom convenient. Would YOU want your private sexual encounters made public? Every man, every woman has weaknesses and frustrations, some almost unbearable. But whatever the way of the world, there are real advantages to being decent, being nice to other people. What has this to do with the tale you're telling? This doesn't make any sense. Does being nice to other people preclude using a prostitute?

Perhaps it's a small thing in the larger scheme, but Eliot Spitzer was not a nice guy. Then, why did you all vote him Governor??? There were a lot of people waiting to be the second to kick him on the way down. Now they have their chance, and now he will learn how the other half lives. I thought you said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? I guess you didn't mean it. —C.W

MARCH 14, 2008 — RE: The Spitzer Affair
Why do men do it? It's the 'call of the wild.' It is part of our genetic makeup. It is an irresistible urge that has helped primitive man thrive and become the dominant mammal on earth. There was an absolute need to bond with any and all available attractive females even if it meant eliminating other competing males to do it. It resulted in the survival of only the fittest males to evolve and rule our world. As society and religion took hold, there was a need to control these urges. But they are still in our genes. In fact, the more effective and successful the man, the more powerful the drive.

Eliot Spitzer is a very strong and successful man. The urge was overwhelming. To his credit, he tried to be discreet; to protect his family and his career. So he chose a means of getting a periodic release by obtaining the services of an organization that promised secrecy and anonymity. I am sure he still loves his wife. Had he had an affair with another woman, that would have been more dangerous.

Why do girls do it? The 'Oldest Profession' evolved as a result of genes as well. Early women had to learn to 'love' and accept each succeeding man who agreed to protect her and her children whenever she lost her last man because of abandonment, combat or the hunt for food. She needed security in a world dominated by men.

Why do the wives stand by their man? Security and status. See above.

When exposed, what should these people do?

a) The Man: Don't be intimidated. No speeches about 'Mea Culpa.' Like the French premier said in response to his love life, "This is a personal matter and I will not discuss it." He should explain to his wife and family the genetic needs and let them know they are still loved.

b) The Girl: Make the most of the notoriety. Make public appearances. Write a book. Get your 15 minutes any way you can. Help explain the above.

c) The Wife: Stand by your man. He's a winner. Help him get rid of his guilt and attacks from the public and from his hypocritical political enemies who themselves harbor the same urges. Women make a serious mistake if they automatically assume that the occasional 'release' equates to a loss of love and a need to dissolve the union. Even if the husband loves steak every night, he occasionally wants a hamburger. Try to learn as much as you can about erotic behavior and 'loosen up.'

d) Our Society: We have lost the services of some of the most effective men in our world by failing to recognize and accept the above and make accommodations for primitive urges. Other countries laugh at our obsession with these matters. —B.L.

MARCH 6, 2008 — RE: Latest Column
You have put into words something I have felt about leadership and have not been able to express. What wonderful insight you have provided. —B.S.

FEBRUARY 28, 2008 — RE: Why Hillary Stumbled
You hit the nail on the head. I don't know how many times I hear how he or she is on the issues. We never know what the big issues will be.

Neither Bush nor Gore said a word about terrorism. No one expected Katrina (the worst national disaster in our history). We rearranged our government to combat terrorism and left us vulnerable to a hurricane by gutting the FEMA command structure.

I always pick a president by asking myself if I want to hear him in my living room for the next four years. That's why for the first time in my life I'm considering voting for a democrat; although I'm not sold yet. —M.S.

FEBRUARY 25, 2008 — RE: Why Hillary Stumbled
I just read your comparison of Hillary versus Barack. I don't typically seek out a writer to give my opinion. On a long drive this weekend, I was mulling in my head what you seemed to be able to put into words. I think you hit this nail right on the head. Wish I would have read your column on Friday, it would have saved me three hours of thinking about it in the car. Good article. —C.N.

FEBRUARY 25, 2008 — RE: Why Hillary Stumbled
Perhaps I am overly concerned - but I just don't get how the guy selling us that all-meaning thing called "hope" is going to be good for the country. His plans are truly not workable, too expensive especially for a nation that is outspending itself tremendously, he offers "inspiration and hope" as if they were tangible things when in reality all he's offering is nothing - it means something different to each of us - to the guy losing his home it means help is on the way, the mom wanting her son home from Iraq it means Obama's going to get him home as soon as he's in office...

We are a country teetering on the edge of so many issues - fiscally, financially, security-wise, diplomatically, politically ... and all I get from Obama is that he's offering "HOPE (FILL IN WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU)".

Talking, acting and dressing "presidential" doesn't mean he or she is the right one for the job. To be perfectly honest, I don't like any of the remaining candidates from either party - but Obama is the one I trust the least -- I can't trust someone who's selling me "hope" as if it were snakeoil/cureall.

I think as a nation we deserve better — I know we need better even if we don't deserve better! —K.C.

FEBRUARY 25, 2008 — RE: Positive feedback on recent Hillary column
Excellent column on the eloquence of the candidates. Pure poetry! I'm a John McCain fan, have meet him twice, but I sure do like Obama just for the reasons you have described. —J.N.

FEBRUARY 16, 2008 — RE: Letter to the Editor
In what is playing out as one of the biggest scams in Democratic party politics, the Republican party is covertly supporting presidential candidate Barack Obama. They know that the American people are not ready for an African-American president so they are using a different tactic to guarantee eight more years of Republican greed. Take a look at the constituencies that are supporting Obama and ask yourself how he could seriously be considered as representing the Democratic party. Political manipulations and machinations allowed Nader to let Bush steal the election in 2000 and now here we go again!!! —J.B.

FEBRUARY 24, 2008 — RE: Latest Column
I agree with a lot of what you say in this latest column. Especially because I'm a poet, adore words.

However, what a person does at the time is also important: Bush hiding behind a picture book on 9/11. Bush waiting to go to New Orleans.

Actions speak louder than words is the cliche. In terms of good leadership, both are needed, words to inspire, actions to imitate. —E.M.

FEBRUARY 10, 2008 — RE: Letter to the Editor
This letter is in response to Senator Edward Kennedy's endorsement of Senator Barack Obama.

Until today, I was a strong admirer of the Kennedy family. However, this latest act by Edward Kennedy has completely changed my mind. It really amazes me that these two limousine liberals can put ego above party at the expense of bringing back the "rising tide to float all boats". Harry Truman once questioned John Kennedy's youth and inexperience but yet it was far more than what Obama brings to the table today. The late senator Lloyd Bensten is probably turning in his grave with the comparisons between Obama and JFK. Talk about hypocrisy; you never see any African Americans in those Kennedy home movies on Hyannis Port. Perhaps its because the closest they were allowed to come was to pick up the trash at the end of the driveway. —J.B.

FEBRUARY 7, 2008 — RE: Latest Column
Our mainstream news media share most of the blame for impotently standing by when the Bush administration started this latest mis-adventure in the distant sands of Mesopotamia. With that in mind, let us hope they do not repeat this by not putting McCain's feet to the fire of questioning his exuberant support for this war. When he tells us "I will never accept defeat" the question that he should be asked is "What defines defeat?" When he and his supporters tell us "we will never accept defeat" perhaps this does contain some Churchillian defiance but the British leader when he said that knew his enemies were legitimate, functioning nations with which a truce or surrender could happen. Such options do not exist when fighting this globally dispersed gang of religious zealots. Who will represent them when they surrender? Where would such an event occur? Can one leader, such as bin Laden, actually control all those now opposed Washington in what has become a US.S. war against Islam's billion plus adherents?

We should have learned something in our dealings with another global gang, The Mafia. It started in Europe 150 years ago; over 100 years here and it still exists despite losses to its leadership which are easily replenished by others because of its lucrative activities. —S.B.

JANUARY 4, 2008 — RE: Latest Column
I would think that when Edwards spoke of "two candidates who thought their money made them inevitable," he was referring to Romney, not to Obama. —C.M.

JANUARY 4, 2008 — RE: Latest Column
A quick point: I watched the Edwards speech and it was obvious to me that the two big-money losers he was referring to, although not by name, were Hillary and Romney. Always love your columns, have read most of your books. —P.M.

DECEMBER 30, 2007 — RE: Column on Bhutto
Excellent and very accurate. You are so right on this subject. The tragedy is that you had to write this column at all.

As an aside, I have a good friend in India and he believes that this was ordered up by the current president Musharraf. I don't know if he is right but he has warned me about "Mush" (his nickname) for years and I didn't believe it. I now have my doubts. Thank you, —R.W.

DECEMBER 29, 2007 — RE: Latest Column
I am surprised to read your article. It shows that you understand the ground reality. Unfortunately your sympathy and interest lies only in America. We Pakistani-Americans are torn apart, when we see that American interest is not Pakistan's interest. Can we allow Pakistan to have even equal Power that we have given to any American state, and don't interfere. If we as an American can manage to behave and not impose people all over the world would love America. —K.S.

DECEMBER 10, 2007 — RE: Problems with: Religious Freedom - Then, Now and Romney
Here are some problems with your article:

We remember historically that a guy named Joseph Smith was talking to angels and found golden plates from God - which no one else ever saw -

By doing just a little bit of research (something I would expect of a true journalist, not just one trying to take a few jabs at Romney and his church) you will find that there were not one, not two, but eleven separate witnesses, people who personally viewed the golden plates and gave their signed testimony of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_plates#Witnesses_to_the_plates

... that ordered the creation of a new religion.

Wrong again. The translation of the plates, known as the book of Mormon, did not "order" the creation of a new religion. Joseph Smith stated he received an angelic visitation from God the Father and Jesus Christ. They told him not to join any church. 10 years later in 1830 Joseph Smith stated he received revelation from God to found a new church.

Brigham Young ... was indicted for murder in a massacre of innocent farmers heading west on the Oregon Trail.

I mean, really, did you even do any research at all? Or did you just take your points from one of the many Anti-Mormon websites? Brigham Young was never charged (let alone convicted) with anything as far as Mountain Meadon Massacre was concerned.

As for us, we live in interesting times. I, for one, am thrilled by the diversity of the candidates in both parties. But I am appalled by the rise of public religiosity that I began looking into after my airplane encounter with a fellow "born again." It is people like him, and their evangelical fundamentalism, who have been determined to turn American democracy into a struggle between religions, values and cultures.

Romney has been forced to discuss his religion again and again and again by the media because the media wants to put his church on trial (including you IF you want to call yourself a journalist. This is the only article of yours I have read. I am not too impressed with the quality) . Of all of the candidates, including many on the liberal side, he has brought up religion and faith the very least and has instead focused on family values.

they have been a driving force in turning American foreign policy into a cultural-religious war with Islam, a horrific, deadly confrontation that will do neither side any good

Hmmm ... who wants to annihilate who in the name of God and their religion?

You are a very, very poor journalist. Your articles really does very little at all to shed any kind of information or commentary on the Romney speech. Instead, it is full of half-truths and lies about Romney's faith. I would consider a new profession if all you can do is crap out this garbage. —Anon.

DECEMBER 10, 2007 — RE: Religious Freedom - Then, Now and Romney
Really enjoyed your article about Mitt Romney's speech. I am Mormon and, although I may not have enjoyed the thought of some of the less believable (but true! - you could write about some of the more strange things about most every religion) aspects being thrown on out on the floor, I appreciate that you caught the gist of Romney's speech. Most other journalists are trying to turn Romney's speech into a failed speech about Mormonism, which wasn't at all Romney's aim. Just as JFK's speech wasn't about Catholicism, neither was Romney's speech about Mormonism.

I do need to correct you on one thing: You present as fact that no one other than Joseph Smith saw the Book of Mormon's golden plates. That's just plain false. There is written testimony found in the front of every Book of Mormon that three others in addition to Smith saw the plates. Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris all saw the plates and wrote testimony accordingly. And although it's true that one of these three eventually left the Mormon church, he never denied seeing the plates.

Please check the facts of your story before you present it as fact. I think an update to your story is appropriate.

Otherwise, great article. —B.R.

DECEMBER 10, 2007 — RE: Latest Romney article
I am saddened that a well-known author and journalist like you would add this kind of anti-mormon venom to the public discourse. Your article didn't have anything to do with the candidate, but rather the oddities of mormonism. Last time I checked, that is called religious bigotry. (For the record, not all of your 'facts' are correct either. Several witnesses wrote a document testifying that they saw and touched the gold plates that Joseph Smith translated. Look it up in that 'written record' that you had so much fun with.)

I want you to know, if you haven't already deleted this, that I agree with you that religious right is making this campaign into a contest of religion. I also agree with you that it is both annoying and frustrating to share an airplane with a preacher. But when you lump every person with a religious faith into the "religious nut-job" category, you're making a mistake.

I would classify your tone in the article as a sort of sneering arrogance. While I have enjoyed some of your boldness in the past, I am disappointed in you. I appreciated the sentiment and ideas behind some of your words. For example, you seem to value a separation of religion and politics. I couldn't agree more. Why then, in an article that must be classified as "political opinion" or something like that, do you feel justified in vilifying a certain faith, without mentioning a candidate's stance on policy? It kinda seems like you're chasing your own tail. —J.A.

PS, my dad is a mormon and a journalist and you're not half the man that he is.

DECEMBER 9, 2007 — RE: Latest Column Religious Freedom -- Then, Now and Romney
I wanted to start off by saying I respect your opinion of the tenets of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". Your freedom as a writer to be able to freely state your opinion is one of the reasons that this country is so great and I respect that.

What concerns me about this column is your assertion below regarding Joseph Smith and his "gold plates" which the Book of Mormon was translated from:

"we remember historically that a guy named Joseph Smith was talking to angels and found golden plates from God - which no one else ever saw"

I understand why some people say statements like this because of bigotry or just plain ignorance. But, Mr. Reeves, knowing how well read you must be, to make incorrect statements such as this is irresponsible and frankly I am surprised that you would write that in your column. I am not asking you to believe these eleven men who testified they saw the very plates "no one else ever saw". But I am asking you to get your facts right. Every copy of "The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ" (120 Million to date in 106 languages) has this written on the third page:

THE TESTIMONY OF THREE WITNESSES

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.
Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris

THE TESTIMONY OF EIGHT WITNESSES

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.
Christian Whitmer
Jacob Whitmer
Peter Whitmer, Jun
John Whitmer
Hiram Page
Joseph Smith, Sen
Hyrum Smith
Samuel H. Smith

I would appreciate hearing from you and asking you do more research before you write articles like this in such a widely read column, such as yours, and that so many people take as the truth. I am assuming this was an oversight and that you would correct this somehow. —J.M.

DECEMBER 9, 2007 — RE: Mitt Romney's religion
First off, I love your column and tend to agree with you on most subjects. I just read your column RELIGIOUS FREEDOM - THEN, NOW AND ROMNEY and I had a tip for you. Next time somebody approaches you and asks "Have you found Jesus?", just bug out your eyes and say: "Why, I AM Jesus". That should ward them off nicely. A good croupy-sounding cough works well too! —S.S.

DECEMBER 9, 2007 — RE: Article on Mitt Romney "Religious Freedom..."
Just read your article, "Religious Freedom — Then, Now and Romney". I liked it. I support Romney, however. —L.V.

DECEMBER 1, 2007 — RE: Giuliani
I wrote to you about a year ago and told you I thought Rudy would get the nomination.You emailed back no not likely.

I realized that the terror issue would trump all else in voters minds for the security of their children's future.

You hit the nail on the head with the Republican candidates.If you remove Rudy we are left with a group of southern twangs and quiet frankly I hope not to hear a twang in the Presidency again for many years. As for McCain I will say what the media will not. McCain is too old .This is not the era Reagan inherited at McCains age.

The Democrats are no better. The Biden Dodd duo in my opinion propped themselves up as actors.

Obama is fine but he seems to be afraid to take on Hillary. If he cannot take on an opponent in the most important race in our country I fear he will not have the stuff to go head to head with a foreign leader.

Edwards is too slick and turns most off. Plus he has a twang. Hillary is the past. I envision Carville twanging all over the cable news programs. Plus she brings with her the all time twanger Bill Elvis Clinton himself.

I think Rudy and Obama have to get the nominations. Two polar opposites and no twangs! —Anon.

NOVEMBER 23, 2007 — RE: Note regarding your book: President Reagan
I bought your book "President Reagan", and I am almost finished reading it. I have a point to communicate to you regarding your writing:

Page 245. "... Mikhail Gorbachev ..., the first Soviet leader with college education."

I spoke with my father, Igor, and here is our opinion based on my dad's knowledge.

Vladimir Lenin - Lenin studied in Kazan University. He was kicked out from the Kazan University, as he was a brother to Alexandr Ulianov. Lenin's older brother, Alexandr Ulianov, attempted to assassinate czar. Lenin completed his studies at St. Petersburg University and became a lawyer well before the Red October. It is also noted that his marks/grades were exceptional.

Joseph Stalin - Stalin studied in a religious seminar - highest religious education establishment at that time. My father thinks that he was expelled due to his activities to fund the revolution.

Leonid Breznev - He studied in Denpropetrovsk(side by side city with Dneprpodzergzinsk - two cities separated by Dnepr river). We don't know, if he finished his education. However, my father believes that there is very little doubt that that soviet leader was denied his graduation.

The part that made me look into your statement is that it is generally believed that the soviet/red movement of Lenin and pre-Lenin time was born and hatched in the education circles. Many of the Soviet early leaders came from the universities. —Anon.

NOVEMBER 6, 2007 — RE: article on Hilary Clinton
Read your recent article on Hilary Clinton "Her first ladyship and those bad boys". Excellent article and really enjoyed and agreed with your assessment. —K.H.

OCTOBER 12, 2007 — RE: Latest Column
What a sad chapter in our history.

If we really want to end this stupid, wasteful war, let's just add a 10% surcharge to every American's federal income tax bill. Then we could watch all those macho blustering hawks turn into doves overnight.

But, please ... keep on keepin' on. —J.L.

SEPTEMBER 22, 2007 — RE: Korea
Just read your recent Editorial.

Did you know there is a previous book about Korea called "The Coldest War" by James Brady. a memoir of that terrible time.

I also think that every American citizen, regardless of his politics should read "Fiasco" by Tom Ricks. The arrogance and ineptitude he describes is breathtaking.

I live in Bangkok and here, travelers also ask "Why?" Most Americans are shocked and sad. I did meet one Bush supporter in April and he was firm in his convictions. Lately he has softened his position.

I have another friend in NJ who loved Bush. (He also said that "Clarence Thomas is a brilliant jurist.") I got an email from that friend recently. He said, "Jan, you are right. Bush is an idiot." Too late for how many thousands? —J.P.

SEPTEMBER 22, 2007 — RE: Clinton vs. McClain piece
The fact that McCain seems to have forgiven Bush for that dirty Carolina campaign puzzles me too.

But I thought that by far the worst thing Bush did was to circulate rumors about McClain's black love child, who was of course the Tamil child he adopted. (Bush's denials of culpability are meaningless) Personal attacks are one thing, but an attack on one's family goes beyond the pale! How could this man of fortitude have bent over and taken it up the...(pardon the San Francisco expression) from someone of low character like W?

Perhaps Senator McCain is just another famous and powerful person who is also deeply strange. —T.B.

SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 — Latest Column
I always enjoy your columns. I have thought for a long time that the situation in Iraq is a total mess but there is no good way out. So, if the Democrats were to end the war by withdrawing funding, the Republicans would blame them for the total chaos and destruction that ensues in Iraq and perhaps throughout the region as well. As it is, this is all the Republicans fault. The Republicans are dying for the Democrats to share the blame. Not very courageous on the Democrats part but it is understandable. —T.B.

SEPTEMBER 3, 2007 — Latest Column
You say both "parties" think U.S. citizens are "uninformed morons." I'd suggest you're too chicken to say you believe they actually are uninformed morons.

The sad truth is people in this country are both uninformed and moronic. They, generally speaking, do not know how to think. And if they were able to think, they'd have to find some way to get the information necessary to make informed decisions. They won't get it from television, and they're surely not going to put together the amalgam of international sources needed to get any kind of realistic image of fact.

And the moronic is obvious when most people in the country care more about what happens in professional sports than they do about the death, destruction and wholesale human tragedy being created by their own government.

As I keep saying, the people of this country have the government they deserve — and they're going to keep having the government they deserve. —B.T.

SEPTEMBER 3, 2007 — RE: Articles
You are such a lying democrat, with your snobby nose stuck in the air, that you have lied about Republicans for so long, you can't see the truth. Democrats in D.C. and New York cannot and will not see how you are so despised by the rest of the country. Democrats worship the dirty Clintons and all the trashy baggage they carry. They are so evil, wicked, and trashy, so guess thats what democrats love most. —D.M.

JULY 20, 2007 — Re July 18 column
As for your point about science and the Bush administration's tendency to warp the facts to fit their ideology, I question whether the Democrats are any better, at least to the degree that it would make any material difference. If you believe virtually all the climate-change scientists, we have to cut our carbon output globally by 80 percent in the next 7 1/2 to 9 1/2 years or we are doomed.

So far, neither the Democratic Congress nor the Dem presidential candidates have proposed anything like the kind of cuts that are necessary. Sure, they're proposing lesser actions, but these are (again, if you believe the scientists) are actually worse than doing nothing, since they would waste resources but fall short of the absolute minimum 80 percent reductions in human CO2 output needed to prevent the triggering of several tipping points that will cause the planet itself to release catastrophic amounts of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. At that point—in the near future—there is nothing mankind can do to save itself. There is no half-a-loaf solution here. It is truly all or nothing. Right now, it looks as if we'll get the nothing. And then none of the Dems' health-care proposals or education reforms or anything else will matter at all. On the whole, I think we may be better off with obvious scientific fakers in office than ones who are a little more enlightened but still not serious. —G.B.

JULY 1, 2007 — Latest Column
"In other words, like Machiavelli, Cheney's great strength, his mastery of process, is also his great weakness. He does not know or care much about democracy."

And the fact that all his work and mastery of detail is for nought. His legacy is the death of thousands, the destruction of the Constitution, the diminution of American power and the possible demise of the GOP. He is a dark force that history will not view kindly. —S.C.

JUNE 29, 2007 — Latest Column
When I consider Cheney, I come face to face with pure evil. —R.C.

JUNE 28, 2007 — Latest Column
This country doesn't need a woman president, or a black president or a Jewish or a Mormon president. This country needs a GREAT president. —D.C.

JUNE 16, 2007 — Latest Column
The seldom voiced greatest fear in America today (at least for me) is the cancer of deficit spending and the already huge, unpayable, national debt. We are correctly considered a rogue nation by many non-americans. —R.C.

JUNE 15, 2007 — Latest Column
Oh come now if we quit acting like King Kong to the rest of the world how will we make democrats out of all of the nations that we are in financial hock to? Who will take over the military industrial gravy train. Without our constant finance outpour, our Nation might be able to start taking care of our own national finances and infrastructure problems which are going downhill at a rapid pace. —E.R.

MAY 18, 2007 — Regarding Your Latest Iraq Column
Sir, I read your article on the Iraq War on "realpolitics.com". Thank you for sharing it with us. I hope you won't be offended if I pointed out a couple of fundamental errors in the interest of helping improve future columns.

1. While it resides in North Carolina, Duke is not a southeastern school. By talking about it being in that "flag waving part of the country", you appear to assert that it reflects southeastern sensibilities. Duke is no measurement whatsoever of what the southeast part of the country thinks. I was talking to a brother journalist of yours from North Carolina last week and he explained how people in North Carolina see UNC-Chapel Hill and North Carolina State as their schools, and detest Duke, which they see as catering to elitist carpetbaggers. You can't construe anything at Duke as representing the Southeast.

I served in the Army for nine years, and didn't know of a single graduate of Duke in the military. In fact, I knew of almost no officers from any of the Ivies or faux Ivies. Eastern establishment types don't go for the Army, and haven't for decades; they think they're too good for it. It's a sad commentary that few rich people (especially liberal rich people) see this country as worth fighting and dying for — the officer corps has been heavily middle-class Republican since the Carter/Reagan years. This fact fits in with your excellent "Arrogance of the Entitled" column a few weeks ago.

2. The war isn't "lost" by the Americans, despite Senator Reid's decree. In fact, "winning" and "losing" at this point isn't very accurate. People who've spent any significant time in Iraq (as I have, albeit as a civilian, know that simplistic language for this complicated situation is inaccurate. The question is whether the Iraqi military and police can stand up, and whether their can be some political accommodation that preserves the peace. It's extremely difficult to get the political accommodation unless the military and police are strong, and more or less pluralistic and neutral. It's an open question whether/when that can happen. Nobody, least of all so-called experts who haven't been there, knows if it will be a success, but I've seen from pockets of success there that failure is not foreordained.

I suggest you get a hold of President Bush's speech and question & answer session in Grand Rapids, Michigan a few weeks ago. The President [very belatedly] gave a really good explanation of the war's progress and challenges. Of course, it went virtually unreported, because it didn't fit the media caricature of the President as a bumbling idiot. And arrogance, false emotion, entertainment and ratings — not truth — appear to be the coin of the realm in the mainstream television media today.

But you can be better than the television people who skew the truth so badly. You're obviously a brilliant man, and a skilled writer. Please use that tremendous ability responsibly. Thank you. —J.M.

MAY 18, 2007 — Only Republicans can stop the war?
Gee, and I thought our enemies had a say in the matter. We can try to quit all we want but it's not over until our enemies have had their way. If I was in al Qaeda, I'd love to "fight" against losers like you. But hey, tell me how what I just wrote is wrong. —J.T.

MAY 18, 2007 — Re: Only Republicans can stop the war
That Democrats would need substantial Republican votes (at least in the Senate) to force an end to this ruinous war was clear even before their victory in November was realised. Sadly, Republicans are notoriously intransigent when it comes to breaking ranks with their party or their president. Except for Chuck Hagel and Ron Paul, who among them has had the courage to vote with the Democrats? Hope springs eternal that the "moderate" Republicans like Collins, Snowe, Grassley, Lugar, Smith or Spector will come into the light, but they never do. It is always stone cold solidarity with Bush's neoconservatism, even though they may strongly disagree those policies and giving them support may be against their best political interests. Why do you think that is? Why do you think we see the same unwavering support from the voting "base" though, once again, it more often than not means hard-pressed working individuals voting against their own best economic interests? Democrats are not like that. (In my opinion, Democrats abandoned their party all too often to be sucked in by disingenuous nostrums from Reagan and unceasing alarmism by Bush & Son.) Republicanism seems as much, or more, like religion than politics, extreme fundamentalist religion, the kind that leads to profuse hatred and bloodshed. Care to analyse the psychology of these crazies...in a column if not in a few words of response?

Like John Edwards, I look at America and see two countries, but not just differentiated on the basis of wealth. I see a schizophrenic America, half mad and half sane. I see the thoughtful educated Dr. Jeckylls on the left and the angry lunatic Mr. Hydes on the right. I've seen this divergence all too long, since the Reagan administration decided to wage secret illegal wars and direct Central American death squads from the White House basement, since it was decided that truth telling was for wimps like Jimmy Carter and big lies could be made palatable by sweetening them with that old time religion. I don't think even Nixon was so despicable as to represent his policies (refreshingly rational and even "liberal" in the mists of nearly 40 years gone by) as divine revelation straight from the heart of Jesus Christ, his lord and saviour. Perhaps he had simply not thought of it or didn't believe the American people could be so gullible. It was enough for him to build a Republican base on racial animosity with his "Southern Strategy." John Dean is right: the Bush dynasty has trumped Nixon in every vile way possible and they built on the Gipper's total lack of respect for truth and humanity. The used lies, fear, religion and the occasional war to gain and hold political power. Over the years, the Republican party has transmogrified Reagan into a demigod, an American Vicar of Christ in the flesh, sort of like a pope. If you don't believe that analogy, consider the rhetoric tossed around in the last two Republican presidential debates: they are looking to choose the next Reagan after the current Reagan finishes his term. It all seems very twisted to me, but then I'm a Democrat who has no illusions that our party should hope to elect the next Roosevelt. —M.O.

APRIL 27, 2007 — a few thoughts in your Halbertstam piece really rang true
A few of the statements in your piece about the death of David Halbertstam really rang true for me, really made me brought me out of the stupor of surfing the web and sit up and think. You said that once black people "challenged the government and changed the country"; that Mr. Halbertstam "made Americans confront the reality of what our government was doing there."; that "Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, showed that the leaders of the U.S. government were literally mounting a coup against country and Constitution."

I ask myself, where are these people now who would change the country, its actions and direction? My mind replies that we are here, but our numbers are insubstantial. I agree that your profession has "lost its way", yet, so have we all. I care, read, challenge ideas, and scream out from the mountaintops. Yet, it seems like I am yelling into a sea of apathy and vapidity. Our nation has lost its way, and maybe we are finally waking up to that sad fact.

A few months ago, I attended a weekend anti-war rally in Seattle. Our march was peaceful, and we were passionate and diverse in age and race. We were also very few, numbering perhaps several thousand. I've participated in bigger fun runs. How is it that people in one of the most educated, progressive and thoughtful cities in the country would not turn out on a rare and piercingly beautiful sunny spring day, to march against an illegal, immoral, destructive war?

I think to myself in my darkest moments, that this has all been orchestrated, that the education system, journalism and citizenry have become so degraded, the entertainment industry become so addicting, so that it no longer matters and "we the people" no longer care. Our government is today mounting another coup against country and Constitution; our government is committing atrocities in our name, and nobody cares. I talk about these things, but nobody cares. We are running gulags, for Gods sake, and nobody cares!

And yet, these things, what we care about, what we rail about, this nation, our people, our impact on the world, these things are important. This year we have lost some great voices. As a Texas ex patriot, I especially miss Molly Ivins. Were I a journalist, I would aspire to step into their places in the shield wall. Some will, hopefully before while some still believe that America is better than what America was doing, what America is right now.

Now there is a thought of my own that I like. I, as a concerned and active citizen, can take my unheralded and unromantic place in the shield wall with those others who still care, and stumble forward against all of this.

Nice piece, and I read your work regularly. After this, I will delve into Halbertstam's and Talese's as well. —C.R.

APRIL 26, 2007 — Re: Arrogance of Entitlement
I enjoy your article but thought perhaps you are missing the point on the pricey haircuts. It is a brilliant campaign move to befriend a pricey stylist. Edwards sits and chats with his barber/stylist and the stylist sees an awful lot of very wealthy people over the course of a week - and Edwards gives him something to talk to those people about and in the process make some important connections. I think it is wise of Edwards to go for the expensive salon - although certainly it is not the most politically correct thing to do when all eyes are watching; but it is a smart move. He makes a lot of good connections using a powerful ally - the high priced hairdresser. Edwards is no fool and he is not arrogant - it is a shame he is getting razzed about it because it is probably one of the better ways of spending campaign funds because the potential for further connections and support are significant - particularly if you compound the number of stylists in the salon by the number of wealthy, influential people they see in any given week. Hairstylists usually get more intimate and have more influence than therapists - smart move really on Edwards part. —T.C.

APRIL 26, 2007 — Re: Latest Column
You are speaking the truth! This is how Americans are starting to feel in all parts of the strata. Upper, middle and lower. There still is the "well to do" in America, which as a hard working middle aged entrepreneur I feel I belong; but then there is the upper stratosphere which is so up there we can't see them anymore. And you know, they flaunt it, and just don't care what we peons think.

Mr. Reeves, you cause me to remember the class of Liberalism in the tradition of the Kennedy's and those that understood the meaning of "The Common Good", before the Clinton's totally soiled this notion. It is gone and you have in this article captured the times and the growing frustration in this country. We need to go back to a time before the Clinton's and the Bushes and get back to a country that cares and a foreign policy that counts. —C.R.

APRIL 24, 2007 — Re: Your Most Recent Column
Your latest column "The Arrogance of the Entitled" was by orders of magnitude the most pointless and stupid that I have ever read by you. Who cares? This is exactly the type of chickensh-t the Republicans used to bury Clinton. I'm appalled that a columnist I've read and respected since your worked for Esquire in the 70s would meet a deadline (if that is why you wrote it) by filing a pointless, self-satisfied piece that names Corzine and Edwards as if they were no different from Wolfowitz. Where is your sense of proportion?

Are you doing "fair and balanced" reporting - is that it? At a time when the country has been put it the worst shape it has been in since before Franklin Roosevelt was elected, Edwards is the only candidate with a southern accent. If you don't think that's important, check out the last 3 Democrats who became president. Get real. The Republicans don't need any help discrediting opponents and the next election is far too important to be nickel and diming candidates who have the potential (at least) to lead us in a different and hopefully better direction. Rush Limbaugh does not need any help from you.

A very disappointed regular reader of your columns —G.P.

APRIL 23, 2007 — Re: Your columns on campaign money and John Edwards
How the hell did you get inside my head to articulate my own thoughts so accurately? Great work. —T.A.

APRIL 21, 2007 — Re: Latest Column
A standard but true prefatory remark - I've enjoyed your columnizing (columny?...tempting) for years. So, what's biting you? If I had the energy, I wouldn't spend it condemning either Edwards or Corzine at this point - there's plenty of real moral outrages available for comment. Edwards may at the entrance to the road to hell, but I'm sure it barely looks like a gentle slope at this point. You will be aware that he is surrounded by PR people, advisors, etc., who would be expected to tell him incessantly that image is all - it's a small universe for him or any other significant candidate. This kind of flak is to be expected - I just thought you had better things to do.

Governor Corzine is another matter - neither you nor I know enough details (facts) regarding the incident to assign a level of responsibility to the governor in this case. For all we know, he may have demanded that the trooper drive as recklessly as possible, doubtful, but everything is possible. Or, the trooper - who to my knowledge was the one driving - may have made all relevant decisions in the matter in such a short period of time that it would have been impossible for Governor Corzine to have influenced the situation significantly. Perhaps at some time you have criticized people for reaching conclusions without adequate information - possibly in regard to Iraq, for instance.

I am not a particular admirer of either man, nor am I a partisan. I don't dislike people because they have access to money and spend it; I dislike people who are irresponsible, cruel, or callously greedy. Maybe Wolfowitz would fit at least the first adjective, but we've got at least one "jury" out at this time, so I'll hang on for a bit. This is burr-under-the-saddle writing, and you can do much better. I've seen it. —R.P.

APRIL 21, 2007 — Re: Latest Column
The pay or income differences between CEOs and line workers doesn't began to show the real American disparities in wealth. The wealthy own property vastly more valuable than that owned by typical "working class" (obsolete term?) individuals. Also, note the great stock market increase merely reflects the rapidly declining value of our currency. —R.C.

APRIL 2, 2007 — Re: First ladies
A-freakin'-men, Sir!

The whole institution is absurd. I'm so glad somebody said it, and said it so bluntly. But Hillary Clinton's husband was still Governor of Arkansas in 1991.

I'm a big fan of your columns, and glad you post on the web. —J.M.

MARCH 17, 2007 — Re: Latest Column
I am a country editor in Virginia and just read your John Edwards column. I am a native Tar Heel, but I would support John Edwards if I came from some other state.

Thank you for you column. You are my favorite national columnist. You have a depth and appreciation of history that I, at 62, sense is lacking in too many people in our crazy business.

I hope your column helps Mr. Edwards, although I know you did not write it to help anyone. That is not your approach.

Anyway, thank you for being there and doing what you do. I and many others appreciate your skill. —R.G.

FEBRUARY 27, 2007 — Re: your column "Obama vs. Clinton: Win-Win!"
True, the Democrats may seem fun for '08— but only for those in the media. For the rest working, underemployed, and unemployed America, this is simply another exercise in disappointment and frustration.

Hillary Clinton will be the blue nominee. She will detonate all other candidates with her campaign spending. And while fundraising through the web—gleaning greenbacks from those grass roots— may earn comment once again, it's corporate donations that will determine the candidates and more importantly, all issues presented for the '08 campaign.

And Hillary IS Big Business. Multinational business. Murdoch-in-China business. The corporatist think tanks have already crafted her "philosophy": the working class is doing better than reported (translation: no substantive help, and the job outsourcing will continue). We'll get more of the "retrain to compete" rhetoric (translation: US jobs are leaving anyway, and in four years, the same canard can be said again).

Ask ANY candidate this time about protective tariffs, about job retention, about job creation in this country. You will get blather at best. The corporate boards, speaking through our contestants, have already spoken FOR them.

Health care? Worker safety? Lower interest rates on credit cards? The candidates may "fight" for us, but no legislation will come from it, no policy will be executed to improve life for the vast majority of Americans.

Instead, we'll get more of the "spirit of bipartisanship." This means the major parties will move from their traditional positions to pass legislation. Translation: Democrats will compromise and agree to cut benefits; Republicans will compromise and agree to raise workers' taxes.

To see all this as "win-win" must take tremendous imaginative power—or be a form of blindness. —R.F.

FEBRUARY 25, 2007 — Re: Obama vs. Clinton: Win-Win for Democrats
You know Richard, from one nice New York boy to another, you could be just a little less shameless in your Clinton sycophancy. Even at this early stage the polls I've seen show Rudy blowing Hillary away, so I don't know what you're smoking when you assert, without any evidence whatsoever, that it will be an easy Dem win in 2008.

Doesn't it occur to you that Rudy's urban background, ethnic heritage and candor will put a whole bunch of northeastern states in play? Doesn't it occur to you that perhaps the public has had enough of the Clintons, and that there's still a lot more dirt left to be uncovered?

And really, are you so stupid that it takes you that long to learn how to pronounce our state's name? When I first arrived here in 1999 I learned the first week not only to say "Nev-ADD-a", but also to refer to those other than Clark and Washoe as "rural Nev-ADD-a" and not "cow counties". And are you so stupid as not to recall that not all state capitols have domes (New York's among them)?

I work right across the street from the community center where the presidential forum took place. I'm glad Carson City had its fifteen minutes of blue fame, after which we will return to our red state ways.
—Howard Hirsch, Chairman
Lyon County Republican Central Committee
Dayton, Nevada

FEBRUARY 24, 2007 — Re: win-win my ass!
You don't even mention Richardson! I love you're writing, but, you're dead wrong on the 2008 race. Neither Hillary or Obama can - or will win. You're just another emotional liberal who does not have "winning" as the chief priority. Richardson CAN win, and he is more qualified than Obama, Clinton, or Pretty Boy Floyd.—Anon.

FEBRUARY 18, 2007 — Re: Latest Column
No investigation of the press's performance is complete without a thorough airing of the Project for a New American Century, the way the administration was subsequently peopled by those who supported the Project, and that its role is still largely ignored by the press.

It has always amazed me that the PNAC has remained relatively unknown, despite the fact that its core principle of U.S. supremacy and removing Saddam Hussein from power was adopted as official government policy under Bush well before 9/11. Nor was it ever keep secret. The official statement of this policy was exhibited on the government web site.

Cheney and Rumsfeld were among the founders of the PNAC in 1997. Other PNAC members who signed letters to President Clinton as far back as 1998 advocating Saddam's removal were able to see their goal of Saddam's removal realized: Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, advocate of Ahmed Chalibi. Others, all well rewarded with high government positions, were Richard Armitrage, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams (Nat'l Security Counsel), Zalmay Khalilzad (Ambassador to Iraq), Robert Zoellick (Deputy Secy of State), Peter Rodman (Ass't Secy of Defense), Paula Dobrinsky (Under Secy of State), and Seth Cropsey (Director of the Voice of America). Importantly, William Kristol and Rich Lowry, editors of the Weekly Standard and National Review, were signatories who could keep promoting the continuous advocacy for war. The key to all that developed was that in 2000, Cheney, asked by Bush to find a Vice President, picked himself. It was a Cheney operation thereafter.

I wrote to you a few years ago suggesting that when the scrutiny of this period crystallizes, it will be Cheney who gets the most ink. You wrote back that Cheney was the most dangerous man in the world. Sadly this treasure trove for historians may take years, perhaps decades, to get sorted out.

Perhaps you are the one to undertake it.—M.E.

FEBRUARY 15, 2007 — Re: The press and Iraq
As someone who spent 23 years in the news business myself, mostly with newspapers, I must say I have learned something about the news media from the Iraq War that I didn't realize before: The press may not "love" war, but it certainly supports American wars. I had never looked at it that way until Norman Solomon pointed it out in a column and his book about the press and war.

The only war I had any part of as a journalist was the Gulf War, which was short and relatively straightforward as wars go. I certainly never felt that I was pushing that war as I helped direct my paper's news coverage, and I can't even remember how newspapers editorialized on the war. (I personally opposed that war, for what it's worth.) My focus professionally was to make sure our readers had the information they needed to stay abreast of the war and to make intelligent decisions about something that was so important.

During the Vietnam War, I was in college and in the Air Force, so I didn't see that war's news coverage as a journalist would have. However, in the past year or so I have learned things about news coverage of the Vietnam War that I didn't know. For example, I have read that by some point in 1968 not one of the 200 or so largest newspapers in the United States had editorialized against the Vietnam War. As in Iraq, it was the public who turned against the war in Vietnam before the media did and before many politicians did.

And I was also shocked to learn about how controversial David Halberstam's Vietnam reporting was inside the New York Times — with editors going so far, I have read, of twinning pro-war Washington-based stories on the front page to try to weaken the impact of his stories from the field that put the lie to what was being said in Washington. Being the ninny that I am, I always thought the Times was heroic in having Halberstam report what he did report. And in a way I guess they were. They could have just canned the stories — or buried them on page A19 as has been the case with much of the critical Iraq War coverage in some major newspapers. But I never knew that top people at the paper were very uncomfortable with what he was reporting; they apparently just didn't believe what he was writing. (If I am correct, you were at the Times in the late '60s, so you may have particularly good insight about its Vietnam coverage.)

Now I have to say the Iraq War coverage comes with its own special set of problems. Clearly the media was culpable in pushing the lies that got us into the war. But it must also be said that I don't think we've ever had an administration that lies the way the Bush administration does. The news media's inability in finding a way to deal with repeated lies from the White House stands as a black mark on the Beltway press corps and raises questions about whether the traditional way to cover and report news has failed. This can be argued all day long, I admit. But one thing is crystal clear: The fact that so many Americans believed (and many still do) that Saddam helped plan 9/11 or that Iraqis were on the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers proves that the news media failed America at a time when it was needed most.

We shall see how the media comport themselves with regard the next looming crisis — Iran. —P.H.

FEBRUARY 10, 2007 — Re: Latest Column
We think alike. You however are able to articulate your thoughts in a manner that demands attention and respect. Now that you have opened up the idea that the press shares a huge amount of responsibility for Iraq you can move forward to the fact that the press should learn from its mistakes and hopefully learn quickly. I know you see that Iraq is only the tip of this iceberg concerning this administration.

Have other presidents made mistakes? Of course they have. But as a casual observer of the last four or five presidents of both parties I always felt that most if not all their decisions were made from the heart with the good of the country in mind. If given the national stage, even a novice such as myself could tear this administration apart on so many issues. Greed and self profit motives wreak from the white house.

A book could be written, and I hope you write it, on what keeps a known alcoholic sober in light of the death and carnage both human and economic he has created. Can money be that corrupting? Can Jerry Fallwell be that convincing? What is holding this house of cards that is George Bush together? I would love to have your talent and the time to write the book on the last 8 years. —K.C.

FEBRUARY 9, 2007 — Re: Latest Column
It was just so obvious that the WMD stuff was pure BS. Hans Blix and Scott Ritter were UN Inspectors who were or had been in Iraq and told us there was no threat. Saddam couldn't even shoot down one of our planes overflying Baghdad for 15 years! If I hear our invasion was a "noble" effort one more time I'll be sick. Mort Zuckerman used it this week and every Neocon includes it in his talking points. What was noble about it, anyway? —R.C.

FEBRUARY 6, 2007 — Re: Latest Column
The Baghdad Museum is mostly empty these days (stuff happens) and would make an excellent presidential library for GW Bush. The wall could be decorated with the "Mission Accomplished" banner and several of the sovereignty transfer documents. Plenty of Abu Ghraib artifacts must be available (waterboards, peaked hoods, dog leashes and more). Think of the drama of some actual suicide vehicles and kicked in doors. —R.C.

JANUARY 22, 2007 — Re: How much does war cost
I simply did some basic history research on the middle east and on urban warfare in general and even I could see the writing on the wall. I still believe in the end, if one only follows the money trail it will lead to the obvious conclusion that the so called highly educated and wise men elected to run this country had to have huge financial reasons to start the war.

I am not the least bit terrorized by Osama but I am truly terrorized by what the power of the media can do to this great nation when seized upon by the likes of Bush and co. I hope Americans as a whole realize how close we have come to the largest "long con" ever conducted, and I don't just mean Iraq. —K.C.

JANUARY 17, 2007 — Re: Who Is Losing Iraq? It's Not Bush
I am eighty years of age, I have read, heard and been a very small part of it since 1938. In the last thirty years I have seen the media's gradual change from reporting the news to the point of almost making it. Yous are a great example of this.

I take my hat off to the most educated and elite organization of our times but cringe to the lack of common sense held by most of it. It is now as dangerous an organization as perhaps the Federal Government of which you write.

An old friend of the family long since passed; formerly editor of the Abilene Reporter News is no doubt twisting in his grave from the antics of fellow journalist he passed the torch to. He reported the news, passionately and without bias. Please give me an example of yours?

You demean, you are disrespectful and at times outright wrong. You complain about Bush pulling the wool over the eyes of those of you who know better. You are admitting that an average, partially uneducated (the press's words) man out of Texas could pull off a scheme, right under your press, that would only rival Hudini. In all due respects Mr. Reeves, it is one thing to be thought a fool but entirely another to stand up and confirm it.

No, Mr. Reeves, if we lose in Iraq it will be because of; the Media and The Federal Government (Democrats and Republicans alike.) You and your comrades of the media are the Judas's of the modern time, professing loyalty to our military, however, when they come home you will accept your thirty pieces of silver and let them down.

I am aware of your strategy here. If the war in Iraq happens to fail you will blame the President and further you and your media will, in all their devious ways, attempt to get the people to punish conservatives. —H.D.

JANUARY 11, 2007 — Re: Latest Column
Many Americans were upset when the then newest member of congress, Rep. Jeanne Schmidt, R-Oh., called Rep. Murtha "a cut-and-run coward" despite Murtha having served for 39 years in our armed forces including having been awarded citations for bravery when he served in Vietnam. But far more upsetting to me is the sad fact that she was re-elected in the recent election. President Bush has followed the advice of the Neocons who have risen to the top ranks of American power surrounding him. Seymour Hersh puts their numbers at about two dozen which surely qualifies them as having been the smallest group to start a major war in world history.

The Neocons played a major role in starting the first U.S. war against Iraq and continued this success by exploiting the ineptness of our most incompetent president in history. Three days ago one of its members, Fred Kagan, appeared on C-SPAN's Washington Journal advocating the surge proving Bush has not learned a lesson and is still following their agenda. Kagan told a caller the new troops would seek permission to enter Iraqi homes to seek weapons but if that request was rejected "our troops will batter down the doors anyway."

The few of us who served in World War 2 must surely be aghast when Bush last night actually told us he was dispatching two naval battle groups to interdict any aid Iran is sending to the insurgents fighting us in Iraq. Few Americans are aware of our past history with Iran going back to the CIA, at the behest of British Petroleum, overthrew one of the first Islamic governments in the area attempting to follow a legally elected government. The U.S. had brandished its nuclear arsenal over two dozen times threatening to nuke nations not having the capability to retaliate in kind.

Is it any wonder that Iran, or any nation would not wish to no longer be intimidated in this manner and embarking on what they believe is the only solution to thwart this by creating its own nuclear arsenal. Bush has entangled us into a perpetual, unwinnable war and our progeny will curse us in our graves for having allowed it to have happened. —S.B.

DECEMBER 30, 2006 — Re: Latest Column
I was a young editorial writer in North Carolina during Watergate and at the time President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. I roundly criticized the decision. I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976, although I, along with other Tar Heel editors, had been given an audience with President Ford in the White House Roosevelt Room prior to my state's presidential primary. Looking back on him, I think he was a very, very good president and really a great man, not just a great American.

I cannot remember the death of a public figure in recent years who was lauded for his or her decency as President Ford has been remembered.

Maybe you have to be devious to be president. Maybe you can't be an Eagle Scout (Ford was an Eagle Scout). But he was mighty fine in some tough times. He was not as well appreciated then as he is in death. Americans can be mighty cruel, but in the end, they often are like President Ford — decent to a fault. —R.G.

DECEMBER 30, 2006 — Re: Jerry Ford
I was almost ready to not read your column on Jerry Ford but my wife thought it was interesting enough to prod me on.

Having voted Republican for over 30 years except for the past two unelections, I'm going to say not that you are wrong but I sure don't agree. At the time of Ford's pardon of Nixon I totally supported the President.

After six years of Bush I now think Nixon should have been tried in court, no matter what the cost. These guys keep getting away with breaking the laws of America and are never held accountable. Nixon set a precedent and his derelictions were small compared to what we are living with today. —C.C.

DECEMBER 30, 2006 — Re: From A Johnny Come Lately
I have enjoyed your work in print and on the tube for roughly a decade or more, but I admit I was unfamiliar with the information you recounted in your column on Jerry Ford's passing. I'm pleased that you shared this bit of your past with your latter-day readers. I didn't know you could ever have been so young that you could have had any doubt about the merits of Ford's pardon of Nixon!

It now seems to me that almost every major author of every serious work about Nixon was, at one time or another, what Stephen Ambrose described himself as being: a Nixon-hater*. In my opinion, Ford was, very simply, the right man at the right time. The credit for choosing him, both in the country's, and in Nixon's own best interests, goes of course, to Richard Nixon.

I disagree with only one thing you said in your most recent column: I don't think that any candidate for the U.S. presidency could survive the gaffe Ford made in a debate with Carter, during which Ford vehemently declared, in opposition to Carter's claim to the contrary, that he (Ford) did not think the people of Eastern Europe considered themselves to be under Soviet domination!

My wife, an Estonian-born American citizen, changed her vote on the spot when she heard that remark, as I think at least 5% of the viewing and listening audience did. It makes one wonder if Ford really understood the significance of his signing of the Helsinki Agreement. This may be the one (only?) time when Henry's contribution to U.S. foreign policy deserves to be struck and marked.

In my opinion, the 'free eastern Europe' remark, which Ford was very loath to retract, rather than his pardon of Nixon — which even John Osborne, Eric Sevaried and Abe Fortas explicitly approved — sank his political fortunes. I think there was also a political reason why the GOP needed a pardon. Party professionals and press analogues**, not rank-and-file GOP members, totally deserted Nixon.

Even on the day he resigned, slightly more than 1 in 4 Americans approved of Nixon's presidency, and contrary to popular thinking, the fate of the Republicans in the midterms might well have been even worse than the 48 seats they lost if that 1 in 4 voters (all Republicans) had been disaffected by the continued harrassment (and not unlikely, the death) of Richard Nixon before the midterms.

* Even Aitken, his friendliest biographer, admits at the outset of his book, that he had to be brought up short by Alec Douglas-Home from his preconceived contempt for Nixon.

** George Will still says, in the 21st century, that Nixon should have been im peached over the opening to China, and Buckley Jr. likely agrees. True conservatives, but ... —B.L.

DECEMBER 30, 2006 — Re: Latest Column
I just read your recent column about President Ford as well as your 1996 piece found on the American Heritage website. While I've enjoyed your presidential biographies, I'd been unaware of the latter column. Your willingness to state a public mea culpa, and not just around the time of your subject's death, says a lot about you.

As you, I was no Jerry Ford fan in the '70s. Having moved from the east coast to his hometown nearly 10 years after his brief tenure in office, I've now met many who knew him while a congressman. My wife, with long family roots in Grand Rapids, recalls him as a guest speaker in her high school civics class. Not a fan either, she was shocked to learn while overseas during her college years that he had become president.

In my 20+ years in west Michigan, I've also come to appreciate him, and not just from the times I've been to his rather simple presidential museum where he'll be laid to rest next week. His reputation as a plain and decent man, though certainly with flaws, I believe is quite accurate. Notably, unlike the current occupant of the White House, he was a humble man. In my view, I believe it was that quality - humility, an underrated aspect of presidential character - that enabled the sound 'judge-ament' you spoke of. —M.P.

DECEMBER 17, 2006 — Re: Latest Column
First off I would like to say that I enjoyed your article concerning Iraq, but on the other hand I have to strongly disagree with the assertion of not understanding the enemy. These extremist want us dead at all cost and understanding them will not change that. We had better find a way and the resolve to defeat these radical Islamic groups or what you are seeing in Iraq today will be one step closer to happening in our own streets.

At the end of your article you stated that we need to understand these groups. Are you saying that as soon as we "understand" these groups they will stop committing the killings amongst each other, stop the attacks on the US and others, won't fly planes into buildings, will suddenly stop strapping explosives on their bodies and walking into restaurants and weddings and will change their inherent religious belief that the infidel must be destroyed and that Israel needs to be wiped off the map? Its your right to believe that sudden bliss will come from out understanding them, but using common sense I would call that foolish.

Yes there has been mistakes made in Iraq, but guess what...there has never been a war anyplace or anytime that went flawlessly. If the same mindset and people we have today were living in the 30s and 40s I would be willing to bet the farm that we would be speaking German or Japanese today. That is because we have a misinformed population that thinks that President Bush is the enemy and he is the one leading the attacks against us. People need to remember who the real enemy is and also remember that want you dead at all cost, and all of the understanding in the world will not change that. If we all convert to Islam then maybe they will leave us alone, but if you look at the Middle East for just the past 30 years, they cant even live with each other. —J.S.

DECEMBER 16, 2006 — Re: Latest Column
In a recent letter to my brother, (who survived the attack on Pearl Harbor and later was one of small numbers who survived when his ship, The USS Johnston, was sunk in what Evan Thomas cites as the greatest naval battle of the war in his recent book "Sea of Thunder.") I mentioned my opposition to this war despite his support for it. He has the opinion that the best prevention to avoid war is a strong defense and determination to support policies to prevent such attacks in the future. However, my belief is that our foreign policies have given us unneeded enemies.

One little discussed aspect in the aftermath of "The Day in Infamy" is that we have never effectively disarmed and have pursued foreign policies which guarantee hostility towards us. George W. Bush and the Neocon advisors who lured him into this war have blamed everyone for the tragic results we now see on others rather than they themselves. It is also sad to realize our mainstream news media played a major role in this calamity by not more fully investigating the lies used by those who started this mess. Does anyone with average intelligence believe that Bush or Blair would have dared attack Saddam if they truly thought he actually possessed a nuclear retaliatory capability? Their policies towards nuclear-armed North Korea proved that the best defense against nukes is to have your own nuclear weapons arsenal to ensure you will not be threatened or intimidated by those that have these weapons. Can any reasonable person believe that the Iranians would not be upset by past American aggression against them such as the CIA success in 1953 in overthrowing their democratically elected government at the behest of British Petroleum after they lost their lucrative monopoly on Iran's petrol industry? Can the citizens of any nation feel comfortable when hearing threats to harm them with nukes?

The U.S. has threatened to use these weapons over two dozen times since first dropping them in August 1945 always on nations lacking the ability to respond in kind. Truman threatened the Soviets to accelerate their departure from northern Iran after World War 2; Eisenhower threatened Red China to end the war in Korea. Both nations did not possess nukes at the time but have never been threatened since.

There are many aspects of the present Bush War in Iraq which will be written about by future historians- 1.) Most of those who played a major role in starting it had successfully avoided combat in the past. 2.) Several had ties to foreign lobbys. 3.) The emergence of a strong Christian Right presence eagerly awaiting Armageddon and supporting policies in the hopes that such delusions would finally be fulfilled. 4.) An inept, incurious, unread leader sitting in the Oval Office who apparently suffers from Messianic, Napoleonic delusions. 5.) The failure to effectively disarm since the end of World War 2 due to an addiction to the lucrative profits made by being over-armed. (Ironically, it was a career military leader, Ike, who had warned us against the Military Industrial Complex.)

The greatest difference I have noticed since this fiasco first started is the diminished presence in our TV media by those who did so much to start it- Richard Perle, James Woollsey, Paul Wolffowitz, Frank Gaffney and others. However, the War Hawks at Fox News have not changed course and though we often see the tears of Bush 41 when daring to speak to those wounded or their family members in the unnecessary war he started I detect few tears from Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, Kondrake and others. Many years ago I managed to get a call into C-SPAN and spoke to Lee Hamilton telling him my opposition to the wars we keep getting into. His reply, "We are the leaders of the Free World and we must lead." He along with the man who played a key role in the first intrusion into Iraq, James Baker, are now giving us advice on how to extinguish the fire they started. —S.B.

DECEMBER 13, 2006 — Re: Latest Column
I did combat duty in Viet Nam and was a registered republican till the atrocity called "shock & awe". What unbelievable stupidity, arrogance and utter disregard of law! I reregistered democrat, but a lot of those craven cowards went with the war against Saddam (who did not threaten us). Hillary was all for going into Iraq and has never backed down. Obama saw it as a mistake and voted against giving Bush power to invade Iraq. Guess who I would vote for if these two show up on the primary. —R.C.

DECEMBER 8, 2006 — Re: Latest Column
Thanks for stressing the financial disaster we are racing toward. It is almost ignored in the news of Iraq death and destruction—which seem to be just inconveniences. After all, "Freedom isn't free". Or, "If we don't fight them over there, we'll have to fight them here". Even if these were true statements, America is in a financial death spiral—and we must scream at our so called leaders to stop it! —R.C.

DECEMBER 7, 2006 — Re: Latest Column
Just got through reading your column that appeared in today's Palestine, Texas Herald-Press. I always catch your opinions although I don't always or even often agree with you. But you make some good points and I'm glad they run your column. In fact I even phoned the editor of the newspaper to compliment them on their daily editorials and your opinion pieces.

I once caught you on "Hardball" and was struck at how considered you were in your views. I wish you were on more so we could get your views on world affairs. I get so tired of the "screaming faces" who are ranting and raving about whatever strikes their fancy.

If I might make one suggestion, it would be that I would like to see more of your own views regarding terrorism in the world and where all of this is leading regardless of whether or not Bush as botched the war. Somehow I believe this will outlive his presidency. I do believe that this is the single most important threat facing humanity today. And it distresses me that so many believe it will somehow just go away. I do not believe that. —R.W.

DECEMBER 4, 2006 — Re: dec. 1 column
I agree with you that the economy and its alarming bifurcation will be much bigger issues in 2008. But I'm not so sure Iraq will fade away, or that it should. Look at The New York Times' and Washington Post's stories on the Baker study group's likely recommendations, published the same day as your column. They lay out pretty much what we've been led to believe: They'll recommend some kind of mushily timed drawdown of US troops and diplomatic openings to Iran and Syria. But mentioned almost in passing in the NYT count and buried near the end of the Post's story is this: The Baker group will also recommend that we keep 70,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely. That element in itself I find rather astonishing. What adds to my amazement is that these two august journalistic organs each missed the obvious lede. What!? 70,000 troops in Iraq PERMANENTLY!? It's almost as if they're trying to slip it past us, like an embarrassing fact we're not supposed to notice or as if it were an obvious conclusion that only extremely unobservant or naive readers wouldn't already have surmised.

In my humble opinion, it's of a piece with all this media talk we're getting now about civil war in Iraq—coming only AFTER the elections and AFTER the Democrats took control of Congress. Such courage! (It's like all the big lobbying groups in Washington scrambling to hire Democrats and shovel money in their direction. This is one of the ways the media get on the right side of the new people in power. No wonder the public despises journalists.)

Anyway, to get back to my point. I believe we're finally finding out why we went into Iraq: to set up permanent bases after Osama drove us out of Saudi Arabia. We don't give a rat's hat about democracy (now or ever—read Stephen Kinzer's book, "Overthrow") and never made and never intended to make a serious effort in that direction. What's more, the media are still playing along because the public, as Jack Nicholson once said, can't handle the truth. And the media, of course, still needs to maintain its "access" to the, sadly, still Republican White House—so they can get all those "scoops" from "anonymous sources" that are really nothing but self-serving garbage for both the pols and the journos. —G.B.

NOVEMBER 29, 2006 — Re: Latest Column
As a navy vet of World War 2 it pains me to finally admit that the most admired people in our society today are not war heroes but men who avoided serving in combat. I think most people would believe Dick Cheney did the right thing by avoiding the war which killed a reported 26 men from his home town. Senator Max Cleland, a triple-amputee wounded in Vietnam, was defeated in his bid for re-election by a man who received a deferment for a high school football injury. ( The victor, Senator Saxby Chambliss, is a leading hawk supporting this war.) Columnist Anne Coulter trivialized Cleland's loss of his limbs as "being caused by him accidentally picking up a live grenade" never mentioning this happened in Nam and not in Crawford, Texas and Cleland was the recipient of numerous citations for valor. Compare this to a World War 2 veteran, Harold Russell, who lost two arms while conducting a state-side training course in the use of grenades and was given a leading role in the post-war movie, "The Best Years Of Our Lives." Ironically, those most opposed to Rep. Rangell's bill to restore conscription are mostly draft dodgers who never served and fear if this happened we would soon see the antenna flags unfurled and the bellicose bumper stickers replaced by slogans authored by Quakers.

I am looking forward to Evan Thomas' new book which covers the greatest naval battle of WW2 and the loss of the USS Johnston in which my brother lost part of his shoulder, was badly burned in the ocean and survived shark attacks. I do not know if he is mentioned in this latest book on that battle but he was not only mentioned but had a mug shot in another book covering this "The Last Stand of The Tin Can Sailors." —Anon.

NOVEMBER 29, 2006 — Re: Latest Column
I can't believe anyone would print this bullsh-t. —Anon.

NOVEMBER 28, 2006 — Re: Latest Column
The age old question for supporters of the draft is: who will be deferred? If everyone is to serve, still who will serve in the military? The military needs only 10-20% of those who become 18 every year. The rest will get the modern equivalent of a deferment. We will still have an essentially volunteer military, won't we?

The voluntary military was a passion for Milton Friedman and a major campaign issue in 1968—Nixon was for it and won. Don't expect Republicans to suddenly discover the value of having a large pool of conscripts. I'm sure Charlie Rangel would agree. But I see his own constituents interviewed and unanimously ridiculing the draft.

I can remember the old Southern conservative senators being the main supporters of the draft. What company to keep. Shortly after having a letter published in the Atlanta Journal in 1968 criticizing the draft and Richard Russell for supporting it, I got called up for the draft. I concluded that the draft system is very corruptible. So I pulled my own strings and got into an Army Reserve unit. The Air Force said I was partially color blind so I couldn't fly, and I had no intention of being a point man in LBJ's army to win a tie ballgame in Nam. My dad worked at the post office with an NCO in a local Reserve unit which was ready to recruit a couple of dozen new volunteers; it was kind of similar to the new proposals for national service. I had a choice.

P.S.: Conservatives have been reading your columns for a long time because you write very well and you a fair and honest columnist despite being predictably liberal. I have been reading your work since college. You may want to keep this fact away from your editors. —J.B.

NOVEMBER 28, 2006 — Re: Latest Column
I read your column about the draft and I agree with everything you wrote. I originally believed Bush and Powell but now of course we all woke up to reality. We had no business going over there and removing Hussein. It took a strong man to keep those warring factions in check. I hope the next President realizes a few things about war. First unless we are fighting for our lives there is never going to be a soldier going to a foreign country going to fight harder then the people who live in the country. It is not our country. I think American soldiers would fight to the death for America but not for another country. Democracy at the point of a gun failed. Fighting for Israel is dead. I never thought it was about oil. I saw it as securing Israel. Neocons are finished.

Every time I hear a retired General on television say the Iraqis have to start fighting for their government I always think they did not ask us to go there.They were heading to work one day and the next thing we were in their country destroying it for them and we think they should be fighting for their country? The generals need a reality check too.

Time for America to get out of foreign lands and time for US presidents to govern this country. They were never elected the President of the world although they have had this delusion since the end of WW2. —Anon.

NOVEMBER 27, 2006 — Interesting Points
Mr. Reeves, Today I read your November 23rd article titled "Too Bad Your Kids (and Mine) are not in Iraq". You bring up some interesting points in your article. However, I am sorely disappointed at your commentary on the heroism of the American military. You posit the flawed theory that heroism exhibited by our military members in Iraq "serves no real purpose at this point." Maybe, in your opinion and in the context of this war, that heroism doesn't serve a real purpose. Having served in Iraq, as well as other wonderful garden spots, I can tell you without exception that you are wrong.

America has a checkered history of involvement in conflicts with ambiguous or contentious objectives (Indian wars in the 1800s, Vietnam, the Banana Wars, Operation Iraqi Freedom, to name a few). Conflicts of this nature require the same level of sacrifice from the military as noble wars such as World War II when our country and its military wholly supported the task at hand. Soldiers are far away from their loved ones, living in austere conditions while enduring imminent danger from determined enemy forces. Sailors are required to sail into hostile waters. Marines have to kick down doors regardless of who sent them or the nature of the bad guy behind the door. Airmen fly into skies knowing they could meet their end crashing onto foreign soil where the citizens may curse them or praise them. The purpose of heroism exhibited by my father in Vietnam when he was awarded the Bronze Star in that unpopular war is no more or less purposeful than the heroism exhibited by my grandfather flying in a Navy PBY in the Aleutian Islands in 1943 or that of his fellow brave Sailor whom you saw at the airport. American service members have a purpose to their service, and that is SERVICE, pure and simple. Service to their country, service to their branch of the military, service to their unit; more than anything they serve the purpose of protecting the lives of the man or woman walking shoulder to shoulder with them into harm's way. There is purpose in that if we are to remain a noble nation, especially in the midst of questionable circumstances. I would argue that there is more heroism in doing your duty under questionable circumstances like those our nation faces in Iraq, as opposed to a clear-cut scenario of good versus evil like my grandfather faced in World War II.

You also make the statement that "Volunteers go out there to knock people around and be knocked around themselves. The rest of us watch if we feel like it — and most of us don't feel like it anymore." This may be true for a small minority of adrenaline junkies and hard-cases looking to kick butt, yet the overwhelming majority of people who join the military aren't joining for those reasons. Our men and women serving in uniform volunteer for any number of purposes, some to pay for college, some (like me) because they believe in our country and will go wherever they are sent. I think you are being disingenuous by making statements like this one, and only add to the lousy, inaccurate stigma of a military full of have-nots. Anyone making these kinds of statements does a disservice to our Iraq veterans when you question the purpose of their service,

I am very disheartened as a veteran when notable journalist and author like you make statements like those in your article. My father faced a nation that didn't appreciate his service, a nation that didn't appreciate the fact that his heroic actions served the purpose of allowing several young Americans to return safely to their families. Do you see the purpose and the benefit in that, Mr. Reeves? I would hope our nation's journalists might focus on the purposes or motivations of national policy by addressing those policies or maybe even the public servants who make those policies, not the purposeful American heroes who bravely go where their nation tells them to go. —B.F.

NOVEMBER 26, 2006 — Re: Latest Column
"...their heroism serves no real purpose at this point"

Good line. Keep saying it, please.—D.B.

NOVEMBER 25, 2006 — Re: draft column
Terrific column on the draft. I agree wholeheartedly with you and Rep. Rangel. I'd suggest one small modification of your proposal for universal service: Make sure that if there's a war, all able-bodied young people-regardless of their type of service at the moment war breaks out—would be equally at hazard for doing tours of duty on the front lines. Otherwise, we'd likely end up with a lot of little George W's "serving" in champagne Guard units by joyriding over mid-America in multimillion-dollar jets. I do hope you get a big, favorable response on this. Please consider doing a column to tell us what you hear. Thanks. —G.W.

OCTOBER 28, 2006 — Re: Latest Column
We cannot win wars any longer. That is a fact. WW2 was the last war we won and that was only because we bombed Dresden to rubble and dropped the atomic bomb on Japan. We could have won in Iraq with WW2 tatics but thankfully those days are over for America.

I think we should pull the soldiers out of Germany and South Korea and all the other bases around the world.Let every country deal with their own problems. America is not weakened at all. What it is we are forbidden to fight to win which means great loss of life on both sides. Bush and his neocons forgot. This is not 1942. Whoever the next President may be, better realize it does not matter how many weapons we have we are not allowed to use them.The press will not allow it so I say isolationism is the way to go and the countries of the world better defend themselves. —Anon.

OCTOBER 22, 2006 — Re: Latest Column
While searching your splendid archives I attempted, without success, to find a column you wrote discussing the attack upon the USS Cole. If I remember correctly you may have been one of very few to call attention to the fact that this vessel was a weapon of war. Many, if not most, Americans never consider our actions or policies against others as warfare. Most believe this confrontation with Islam started with the 9-11 attacks when actually the U.S. and a few other nations have been engaged in an undeclared war with them for decades. Americans generally have never accepted the reality that their government's policies can result in unintended consequences such as the attacks on 9-11.

Why do we have such an attitude? Perhaps it is because of engaging in foreign wars, such as Vietnam, where we killed an estimated three million people but the victims never retaliated against us on our home turf. Osama's group finally did. Ironically, unlike our other victims such our Latin neighbors to our south, Nam and others Al Qaida is not a nation but rather a small band of globally dispersed religious zealos Those of us who served in World War 2 and other foreign wars knew our enemies were legitimate, functioning nations with which we could negotiate a truce if we so desired or else their surrender which they later did.

Last night the History Channel aired the Nuremberg Trial in which several Nazi leaders were executed. The hope then was best expressed by our representative, Chief Justice Robert Jackson, that this trial would serve as an example to prevent any such future crimes from happening again. The leading Republican at the time, Senator Robert Taft, criticized the trial fearing they set a pecedent in which American leaders could also be tried before an International Court. But Mr. Taft can rest comforably in his grave because no American leader has stood in dock to be held accountable for their actions.

I was amused recently to hear a caller suggest Saddam should be held accountable and charrged with a war crime for having armed the Iraqis who are now killing our kids over there. Perhaps Bush 43 has this issue backwards because they may prefer to fight us OVER THERE rather than OVER HERE. The logistics favor them as they are on their own turf and as you often say "will always be there when we leave." —Anon.

OCTOBER 20, 2006 — Re: Latest Column

I know one thing about Iraq.The different religious factions are never going to set aside differences and make a united country.Bush talks about the new government over there and yes perhaps the educated Iraqis will set aside differences but the average Iraqi will not because their hatred of each other is too deep.

All over the world countries complain about America.Yet the American citizen is funding most of the world.I want to know where that was written into our laws that American moneys should be sent around the world yearly when we have our own poor and needy.

I think we should get the soldiers out of Germany and other countries let them defend themselves.I find it funny when most reporters say Europe hates us now.Guess what ?they should know most of us cant stand them.Most Americans are about this country.The end.

Bush said the other day if we had not gone to Iraq years from now people would wonder why we had stopped spreading liberty to the world.Again where is this written in our laws?Bringing liberty to the world is not any countries job including Americas.I am tired of American young men losing their lives on foreign soil for other countries when they are not appreciated.

Bush is in a utopian dream.We are going to spread freedom around the world if the people want it or not.Most people in those countries have never known freedom and would crumble in the fear of it all.Taking care of themselves,making decisions when they never had to instead of a following the leader?

As for as Israel I know our bases in the Arab world are there for Israel's protection.I do not care what spin the White house puts on it.That is why we are in the Arab world.I agree with Richard Cohen.I wonder what kind of world we would have had without all the meddling in the Arab world.I am convinced a little better than what we have now. —Anon.

OCTOBER 19, 2006 — Re: Latest Column
realize it is nearly impossiblee to list all the dirty tricks used in American elections. I was surprised in those you listed that the Willy Horton ad was not mentioned. This ad was racist. The race issued served scurrilous charlatans in the past from Bilbo to Lee Atwater. I served with many southerners during World War 2 and never knew one who was a Republican. Of course, even then race played a role since Democrats had the South locked up so securely that there was hardly a viable Republican Party functioning there. While overseas, serving with many African-Americans, it now seems unbelievable remembering Senator Bilbo, from Mississippi, actually put forth a resolution to send our black citizens "back" to Africa. The election in Tennessee may show we as a nation have overcome this hate if Rep. Ford wins or makes a good showing.

In the defeat of war heroes, Max Cleland and John Kerry, the so-called "Swift Boaters For Truth" played a major role in their defeat, especially Kerry's. The mainstream news media aided and abetted in this by not mentioning the fact that John O'Neill was this group's leader. O'Neill had been recruited by Charles Colson in an effort to bolster support for Richard Nixon. (Nixon's astute political prescience still amazes me thinking that he saw Kerry as a man with political ambitions.) A "debate" was held between Kerry and O'Neill on the old Dick Cavett Show. I now wonder why our media failed to display a photo of O'Neill taken with Nixon which may have shown the voters just where the leader of the Swift Boaters political ties were. Of what TV shows I saw at the time only Chris Matthews when he interviewed O'Neill, who did serve in Vietnam, cited the irony that many of this group opposed to Kerry were men who had avoided Nam and combat in the past. In fact, I am still amazed that our media does not more fully inform our citizens of the irony of the small group of draft dodgers who started this war in Iraq sending FEMALES into combat. —Anon.

OCTOBER 4, 2006 — Re: Latest Column
Good comments. I did combat duty in Viet Nam, supported the pursuit of Osama and was a registered republican for 30+ years. But I was greatly distressed by the removal of Special Forces from Afghanistan, and their redeployment to Iraq--and particularlly by our so-called "shock and awe" campaign. I reregistered as a democrat and have been protesting this illegal war since 2002 (when it became obvious). Never give anyone a pass on this Mr Reeves, including my once-hero Colin Powell. Scott Ritter and Hans Blix told us there was no threat from Iraq. This disgraceful action has bankrupted our Beloved America, both financially and morally. We will be remembered as the Nazis of our time. —R.C.

OCTOBER 4, 2006 — Re: Latest Column
Thank you. This column makes infinite sense and should be required reading for every American. —Anon.

OCTOBER 4, 2006 — Re: Latest Column
Another great article, with a very wise revelation as its central point. While your article is a courageous, genuine contribution to the national discussion, it is, in my judgment, short of the full truth, which is that we have long facilitated egregious crimes against humanity in our blind support of Israel.

9/11 was a rogue criminal act (on which many unanswered questions remain but are classified or slienced on the proximity of Israeli sympathizers or agents). In distant history, I doubt that we will be spared of the criminal label ourselves. No one can speak truth to power in this adminsitration or in mainstream media. Too much is fraudulent in that tandum of the core power for our country.

However, your recognition of the problems with WOT and a rogue enemy is a major contribution.—B.H.

OCTOBER 4, 2006 — Re: Iraqi Mistake
I loved your recent column on the mistakes made in the "war on terror". You said much of what I've been trying to tell people that Iraq is a mess no matter how long we are there. The mistake was not in confronting Hussein but how.

I'll bet though if the "mission" in Iraq fails conservatives will blame anyone who didn't stand behind Bush 100%. I will never acknowledge invading Iraq, at least the way Bush did it, was a mistake. I won't be surprised if 30 years from now it plays out all over again with someone saying we could have won if it hadn't been for those who didn't support us.

Meanwhile what happens when we have a real threat such as North Korea or Iran? Who's going to believe us when we say they have WMD, we must invade now? —T.G.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 — Re: a new reader
I've recently discovered your column (thru the Drudge Report) and will continue checking in. I've read your fine book on JFK and , as an old American government major in college (Cornell) I still scour the internet for facts, ideas and theories as to how we've gotten so far off the beam. LBJ went wrong, and stayed wrong, but at least he had the sense, or the humility, to recognize it and withdraw from office. Bush, viscerally, can't face up to it - it's getting too big. Some political cultures allow for the honorable resignations of failed leaders. We face over 2 more years of this congealed group; Cheney, Rumsfeld, Chertoff, Rove. I live in California, where we have recalled a failed governor, and where the pathetic mayor of San Diego resigned one step ahead of the sheriff. It's been said that in a democracy, things have to get really bad before effective action is possible. I fervently hope that we are at that point. —A.S.

SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 — Re: "Have You No Shame" column
We probably were lucky--although goodness knows the 50's didn't feel lucky to me ("if you keep thinking like that, people will believe you're a communist" or something like that--an English teacher said to me well after McCarthy was disgraced). But the $10 bucks a credit hour that the University of Hawaii was charging everybody back in 1960 was wonderful. It was also a bargain even then.

And you're especially right about the "formal education is everything" syndrome. A neocon semi-friend voted for a candidate for county mayor only because "the man has had an education." As if there weren't lots of dopey undergraduates who probably didn't grow up the minute they got the diploma. —Anon.

SEPTEMBER 4, 2006 — Re: "Have You No Shame" column
Thank you for this column. I am a lifelong Republican who has felt the same way about our invasion of Iraq since the President first mentioned the idea. I know many people, both Republican and Democrat, who think likewise. Even George Bush's own father thinks it was a mistake. I do not read all of your columns, so you may have mentioned this, but it would be interesting to publicize the fact that there are many Republicans who have disagreed with the President on his Iraq adventure all along.

I am a regular poster on the Yahoo discussion boards (which are unfortunately filled with all-too-many crazies) and often mention that I am a conservative Republican, evangelical Christian against the war, who also dislikes George Bush for a number of other reasons. I frequently get replies from other Republicans or Christians, saying they feel the same way. I have suggested that I am tempted to start a Republicans against the Iraq War group, and receive replies from Republicans saying they will join if I do.

I don't think one has to be a member of one party or another to see that the war was a huge mistake, or to be blind to that fact (Hillary, Joe). There are others who whiningly use the "Boo hoo, I was deceived" defense, but as Michael Moore put it recently, "I realize that there are those like Kerry and Edwards who have now changed their position and are strongly anti-war. Perhaps that switch will be enough for some to support them. For others, like me -- while I'm glad they've seen the light -- their massive error in judgment is, sadly, proof that they are not fit for the job."

If those in power realize that there are many out there, of all political persuasions, who want us out of Iraq ASAP, maybe they will finally listen. There needs to be no place for them to run and hide. —A.K.

SEPTEMBER 1, 2006 — Re: Latest Column
I agree with everything you wrote in this column.Iraq is lost.I do not agree with one thing you wrote however and it is the notion Hitler and his party were on the right.They were on the left but somehow the media has been able to change this notion for 70 yrs now. This is a quote from Hitler:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927)

—Anon.

AUGUST 30, 2006 — Re: Latest Column
Mr. Reeves....you can rant and rave all you want BUT, I will listen to your ranting only when you come up with some constructive criticism of the war in Iraq!

I read recently that it is the general feeling that we "need another 9-11" to wake you people up to the terrorist threat! Iraq was/is a breeding ground for terrorists and when the head honcho (Saddam) got his WMD act together, he would have gleefully shared it with OBL and others. Why should we have waited like sitting ducks for the next attack?

The claim of "no evidence" is stupid! Before 9-11, we had no evidence that OBL had plans or was was plotting a terrorist attack. Your hero, Bill Clinton even refused to take him out or have him arrested when they offered him to the US. Why? Because there was "no evidence"... If there is another 9-11 I hope you and your liberals friends are the target! —F.J.

AUGUST 30, 2006 — Re: "Have You No Shame" column
Thank you for putting so clearly what I have been thinking. I can't imagine the damage that can be done by this administration in the next four years. I've never worried through previous administrations, always believing that the country could survive any nonsense put out by the President. This one has me worried. —M.M.

AUGUST 27, 2006 — Latest Column
Mr. Reeves: It was totally Bush II (who supposedly did not then know there were Sunnis and Shias in Iraq) and his neocon coterie.

The invasion of Iraq has devolved into a Pandora's box, from which all the solutions proliferate new "killer bee" hives (i.e., expanding the war throughout the Arabian Gulf states, where the newly emboldened Shias of Eastern Arabia could create havoc).

To get a better picture of Bush, review Disney's Fantasia: Mickey as the Sorcerer's Apprentice.

But still praying for peace in the region. —R.L.

AUGUST 26, 2006 — Latest Column
I believe Bush 41 after bribing and threatening other nations to go along with his war against Iraq in 1990-1991 finally came to the realization that by completely occupying Iraq an insurgency would be the result. Since Bush 43 seems to never have read too much history he may not have realized the quicksand an occupation of that country would result in. History has shown that most countries have opposed an occupying force from our days as a colonial part of the British empire or our experiences in conquering the Phillipines. As a World War 2 vet, I have come to the painful conclusion that perhaps it is because of the insurgency the long term results may be our leaders will be far more cautious who they attack anyone in the future and thus American lives may actually be saved. —Anon.

AUGUST 19, 2006 — Latest Column
I did combat duty in Viet Nam and thought even then it was a mistake. But I remained a registered republican till the atrocity called "Shock and Awe". Bush has given America nothing but death, destruction, disgrace and debt. I want my Beloved Country back! It may take some help from our former friends in Europe to expel these parasites called "neoconservatives" from control. Nixon was a genius compared to this truly ignorant, but arrogant and dangerous, current president. —R.T.

AUGUST 8, 2006 — Re: It is refreshing to read a sane approach
Thank you for introducing some sanity into the Middle East crisis. I wish you were president of at least the Secretary of State. I believe that this is a situation that unless the Congress changes in November we will never extricate ourselves and our country will be in increasing peril every day Bush is in office. —M.B.

JULY 28, 2006 — Re: Latest Column
Only the left of this country has the power to stop allowing most of the terrorism in the Middle East. Why doesn't the left go to France, and the rest of the E.U. and talk to them to place much pressure on the terrorists? Most of the left is against Israel and pro terrorists. No matter what Israel does, it's wrong. And no matter what the terrorists do, they're right. You know, day is night, and right is wrong. Get on the right path, soon. —D.M.

JULY 27, 2006 — Re: B