Monday, November 21, 2005


Constance Louchery of Aurora, Mo., wins Monday's prize for hyperbole and offensiveness -- and she only needed five paragraphs to accomplish this mighty feat.

Louchery has a letter to the editor in the News-Leader that defies comprehension. It's almost as if a White House flack had taken control of her hands and forced them to bang out all of Dick Cheney's darkest fantasies. Lookit:
I'm tired of President Bush having to justify the Iraq war to the media. The loss of lives is sad. The last count I heard was just at 2,000 — far short of the millions lost in the first and second World Wars, both here and abroad.

There was much sadness over the loss of life at the towers on 9/11, but what if we had bombings daily like other countries do?

Saddam Hussein had a driving force to take over the world, as Hitler did. Hussein claimed to be King Nebuchadnezzar reincarnated. Like Hitler, he had to be stopped.

Why can't people see that our president is trying to keep terrorism and war out of our country?

The death toll in the first and second World Wars was in the millions and millions, and the loss of property a staggering amount. Did our military men all die in vain? (I think not, we are still free.) People, please be proud of your family members that gave their lives for our freedom in all the wars that have been fought. It was a great sacrifice on their part. Let us be proud of them and honor them forever. Don't dishonor them by suggesting they died in vain.
Translation: Don't dishonor dead soldiers by suggesting they died in vain -- but those 2,000 in Iraq? Sad, but hey, nothing compared to millions and millions, so quit your bitching. Saddam is Hitler.


Anonymous said...

Whoosh... the main focus once again went right over your head. I read it as being supportive of our troops, not necessarily being supportive of Bush's "Let's keep us over there where we're not wanted" policy. We all want to get the heck out of Iraq. It's a no-win situation if ever there was one.

Ron Davis said...

Anon: If Louchery's main focus was "being supportive of the troops," why did she spend the first four grafs of a five-paragraph letter mouthing the Bush Administration's talking points (while saying nothing about honoring the military)?

Your posting exhibits a strange schizophrenia. You laud Louchery for supporting the troops, but condemn the very policy that Louchery says can't be condemned because that would dishonor our soldiers, sailors and Marines.

You say Bush's Iraq policy is a "no-win situation." On this point we agree.