A Decade of Inaction Precedes ‘Rush to War’

Re “War Hero McGovern Still Stands for the Courage to Fight for Peace,” Commentary, Oct. 29: Robert Scheer, to no one’s surprise, joins the legion of liberal commentators who decry our so-called “thoughtless ... rush to war with Iraq.”

If anything is thoughtless it is the mindless repetition of that hackneyed phrase. Iraq has been defying the expressed will of the world community and thumbing its nose at the U.S. for over a decade. The president has decided that enough is already way too much and uses a show of impatience (can liberals not recognize an obvious tactical maneuver?) to pressure the United Nations into finally taking action. Despite his so-called unseemly haste, he allows the French to talk him into giving Saddam Hussein yet another chance.

Where is the thoughtless rush in all this? Anyone who has been paying attention has seen this coming for years. Indeed, it should have happened on President Clinton’s watch. If a decade and more is a rush to Scheer and his ilk, what would they consider thoughtful deliberation -- a century and more?

Paul Morgan Fredrix

West Hollywood

*

I am thankful for Scheer’s commentary on George McGovern. There is a limit to the propaganda put out by people willing to carry water for the Republicans (regardless of how polluted that water is); that limit was attained and exceeded when Richard Nixon was running against McGovern. In the usual Republican tactic of painting the opponent black, McGovern was depicted as the ultimate peacenik and communist collaborator who would have the U.S. run out of Vietnam in a disgusting, confused, cowardly manner -- you know, the way Nixon eventually did. Perhaps McGovern, who had seen war “up close and personal” on his 35 missions against Germany in a B-24, just thought we should give peace a chance.

Donald A. Dzienis

Bellflower