Readers React: Democrats supported Bush after 9/11; why can’t Republicans support Obama now?

To the editor: Islamic terrorists attack the United States, shocking the country. The president speaks to rally the nation, asking for support in fighting this new kind of war, and the nation responds. Political differences are put aside for the moment, and all Americans rally behind their commander in chief. (“Obama seeks to calm Americans on terror threat, but speech underscores challenges,” Dec. 6)

That happened after 9/11, but not this time. After President Obama’s speech Sunday night, Republican attack messages blanketed the media within minutes.

Over the past seven years, the lack of civility in the Republican Party has reached new heights. And now it seems clear that not allowing Obama any victories even applies to fighting a war against a brutal foreign enemy. Sure, Americans should be united in wartime, but fighting against the president is far more important.

The GOP calls the Democrats divisive. There is nothing more divisive than attacking the nation’s commander in chief during a time of war.

Vince Scully, Long Beach

..

To the editor: As The Times notes, Obama’s speech didn’t change the fact that there are “limited options” and “revealed no new ideas or plans for dismantling Islamic State.” Isn’t it about time we give attention to a new strategy — like really getting at the roots of Islamic State radicalism, asking the question that is rarely heard: Why?

I remember how this question came to be asked in 2001, but only months after the 9/11 attack. When the initial cries for revenge seemed useless, many commentators began to ask, “Why do they hate us so much?”

Human activity is always the result of some sort of motivation. How about turning our attention to grappling with the motives that lie at the roots of this vicious movement, which defies the world’s most powerful military establishments?

How about a non-military encounter with the forces that twist so many people’s minds to call evil good?

Ken Dale, Claremont

..

To the editor: Another whiff for Obama.

Does the president think gun control will stop the terrorists from getting assault weapons? Using gun control to deflect from the real issue and create a political issue just continues the president’s modus operandi of pointing fingers and blaming others.

The American people want a president that truly fights terrorism. Instead, what they got was a speech from the Oval Office that was just a rehash of old talking points, with no new actions or strategies against terrorism.

Don Black, Rancho Palos Verdes

..

To the editor: I watched the president address the nation on terrorism Sunday night. Let me quote Obama: “Freedom is more powerful than fear.”

I assume he means all freedom except my freedom to bear arms.

Ronald. D. Vavak, Los Alamitos

..

To the editor: Monday’s newspaper was depressing, partly because it included several bad ideas for fighting Islamic State, including Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) allusion to nuking Iraq and Syria.

The urge is strong to scratch an angry, itchy rash, but that just inflames and spreads it. A cooling ointment and some self-control works much better. One ointment to terrorist recruitment might be to acknowledge our part in inviting hatred by invading foreign lands and then refrain from doing so again without warrant.

The real cures to terrorism at home and abroad are overlooked and, sadly, much maligned: peace, love and understanding. Fighting hatred with hatred only ensures universal defeat.

Kathy Harty, Sierra Madre

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook