Liberal academia 'astounding'

The capacity of the liberal academia to ignore all facts but those which suit their own point of view astounds me at times.  Case in point: Dr. Elinore Taylor's article in Tuesday's Parthenon is full of opinions, half-truths, logical fallacies (if any logical arguments at all exist in it), and idealistic rhetoric. 

Dr. Taylor is correct in her criticism of the Bush administration with regard to General Anthony Zinni testifying before Congress that Iraq was not an imminent threat.  However; Dr. Taylor seems to forget that US, Russian, French, British, and German intelligence indicated otherwise at the time according to the 9/11 Commissions findings.  It is also rather convenient for the liberal cause to ignore the fact that John Kerry and several other leading Democrats including Clinton,Biden, Rockefeller, and John Edwards knew of Zinni's testimony and voted for military action against Iraq anyway.  Why did they not listen to Zinni? Why can we not put some blame on Kerry and Edwards for sending our soldiers to die as well?  It is worth noting that since Bush began his "war on terror" there has not been a single terrorist attack in the US or against US interest outside of Iraq and Afghanistan.  It seems to be that we are much more safe because of it.

The mad ramblings of two "Bushites" who are no longer in the administration and probably rather bitter about that do make very sound arguments to base a thesis on. The attack against Chalabi and the CIA investigation that ensued also doesn't bode very well for the liberal cause.  The CIA that warned against Ahmad Chalabi also agreed with the beliefs of Chalabi with regard to WMDs in Iraq. 

Perhaps, if Iraqi elections are held then it will create a Shiite theocracy.  But, if that is what the majority of the Iraqi people choose to vote for then exactly how is that wrong?  It seems rather illogical to say Bush should not be president because he didn't win the majority vote and to then say that if the majority of the Iraqi people vote for a Shiite theocracy they cannot have it; both seem to be the liberal position. 

Finally, the Abu Ghraib prison issue is hardly "the worst foreign policy debacle in U.S. history".  I do not think the torture and humiliation of those prisoners was justifiable in the least; but at least we didn't chop their heads of, video tape it, and put it on the internet so I guess it is all relative.  I would also like to point out that Dr. Taylor, or anyone else for that matter, has ZERO proof that Bush and Rumsfield authorized the use of torture.  If there was even an inking of proof for this ludicrous claim then CBS would have it all over the news as they now result to using forged documents to power their ad-hominem attack machine against Bush. 

We have been seen around the world as bullies and oppressors for decades now.  It seems irrelevant that Truman, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Wilson used force to attempt to protect the US and our vital interest but it is wrong for a Republican to do so.  Perhaps we are all at a total disconnect from the ideals and values of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.  Washington urged against alliances to foreign powers and Kerry seem to assert that is what we need most.  Jefferson spoke of the "rights of man" and that man was born free but was the largest slave owner among the founding fathers.  Do we want that kind of values?

The Constitution says majority vote does not matter in presidential elections and it never has matters to all of a sudden in 2000 a Democrat wins the popular vote but not the electoral.  That is very out of touch with the Constitution.  Congress gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq but there are some educated people in our society who still seem to think the president acts alone in foreign policy.  The charge has been levied that Bush supporters are out of touch with our founding fathers; could it be the other way around?

Michael Castle Graduate Student Paintsville, KY