Back to School

My latest letter has another challenger. Today Daniel Sitter writes:

Calvin Freiburger, the recent graduate from Fond du Lac High School, wrote a lucid, impressively worded diatribe about liberal teachers still in our schools.


The majority of teachers Calvin learned from in his own words were “outstanding,” but there were some liberals among them that felt the Iraq war was a big mistake.

I didn’t say that having liberals among my teachers was the problem. Indeed, I’ll be the first to say that among the good teachers, I knew a number to be liberal, and I never learned the ideology of most of the rest (I do know of a few who were conservative—but they never abused their positions by pushing a right-wing agenda in class). Nor do I object to considering the Iraq War a mistake. Political opinions become an issue in the classroom when a teacher uses his authority to try to persuade his students to adopt a political belief, and when he presents disputable (or flat-out false) political propositions as facts, and when he does so at the expense of the actual class subject—all of which happened at Fond du Lac High School.

I’m sure the majority of the other teachers, whatever their political affiliation, made up for any liberal bias that Calvin may have encountered.

It’s true that, on balance, I got a good education at FHS. And while teacher indoctrination may not have harmed me personally, since I had a solid grounding in political values & independent thinking, many students can’t say the same—they simply hear these things from an authority figure they’re supposed to be able to trust, and understandably assume what they hear is on the level. Moreover, any class time spent ranting about George Bush is time spent not discussing a class’s actual subject. Indeed, at times my senior year Western Literature course would get derailed by as much as a full week because our resident lefty had ideological grudges he preferred to indulge in.

In any organization, there are going to be people who abuse their posts. That’s understandable. However, it’s the duty of those who run the organization to deal with such people. If they don’t, then we have a problem that demands scrutiny. I’ve seen no evidence that the powers-that-be in the FdL School District have any interest in holding partisan teachers accountable.

As a teacher in Fond du Lac, I’m very proud that Calvin is involved in these discussions and has passion for his beliefs. I’m also impressed with his writing and willingness to take a firm stand. He must have had good teachers who helped him examine his ideas and develop his opinions.

Of all the things for which I owe my public education, rest assured that my political & philosophical development are not on that list. Isn’t it remarkable how arrogant Mr. Sitter seems to be, that one of his first instincts is to claim credit for something his profession had nothing to do with?

What makes me afraid is his self-righteousness and implied superiority in his writing.

Again, I think our friend has self-righteousness issues of his own. But for the record, I don’t consider myself inherently superior to anyone. What I will admit to is this: when I see people abuse the trust a community places within them—entrusting them with the community’s very children—I believe they, along with their apologists, should be stood up to by all the concerned, responsible members of the community.

He is already dismissing those he disagrees with as “all wet” and feels he is “beating a dead horse” when addressing legitimate concerns millions of citizens have in the great United States. I think his narrow world view has something to do with age, but perhaps the reason goes deeper than that.

No, I dismiss those who spout bumper-sticker-caliber left-wing talking points as “all wet.” And as I originally explained, this dead horse has been beat and beat. The argument has been amply waged on the Reporter’s opinion page, and I’ve contributed my share (for example,
here and here). I opted not to rehash Iraq in detail because I wanted to focus on the education angle, which is also important and gets nowhere near as much attention. It has nothing to do with narrow-mindedness, and everything to do with staying on topic.

With radio hosts spewing hate across the airwaves and television shows polarizing viewers in an us-against-them culture, perhaps we should have something to fear from the schools.

I should have guessed: hatemongers like Rush Limbaugh are the real problem! If you actually listen to Rush and his radio brethren, you know Dan is utterly mischaracterizing them (though I will admit that Michael Savage is too much of a loose cannon to be a good representative of the industry. Still, he is the exception to an otherwise-impressive rule).

Maybe we don’t do enough to make sure our students have an open mind and understand that although opinions differ, insulting and condescending opposing viewpoints do not further the discussion at all.

Open minds? My whole point has been that the teachers I’m talking about don’t care a whit about cultivating open minds; they want to churn out new liberals. As for the tone of debate, I think the opposition’s moral authority in that area has been, shall we say,
diminished of late. Politics is a rowdy arena, and people should know better than to get worked up over a little blunt talk & ribbing every now & then (I think most do). What is appropriate? Calm debate is always the ideal, if it’s possible, and I’ve done that when I can. Sometimes, though, there are offenses that need to be condemned, and sometimes reasoned debate is flat-out impossible.

Calvin missed that point, and I for one am hoping we don’t let another student miss the point either, no matter what the politics may be.

Au contraire; your point has been well-taken…and rebutted.

What’s Wrong with Our Schools: Exhibit A

Recently this letter, by a Mr. Glenn Perry, appeared in the FdL Reporter:

I am saddened by the response to a letter about the war written by a 14-year-old girl.


In his response, Mr. Rob Hynek writes about misinformation from other parents and from public education. I take that personally.

I am a teacher in the public education system and the information usually is not incorrect. First of all, the reason we are over there is from misinformation from our president and vice president. Actually, it came from lies, not just misinformation.

Secondly, in case you did not learn this in school, the problems in the Middle East have been going on for hundreds of years and there is nothing we are going to do to fix it. You cannot change people that do not want to be changed.

Third, as for Congress cutting funding, they have tried twice to no avail from scared Republicans and the president.

Fourth, if this war is actually to keep us free over here, then why is it that the politicians that believe so strongly about it and call the men and women who are dying over there heroes (which in fact they are) would not be willing to send their own children to fight for our freedom?

Here are some real facts. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Vice President Cheney asked Allen Greenspan not to talk about the oil crunch if the war took place. And most of all, our president and vice president knowingly stepped up and lied to our faces about what they actually knew was or was not over there — and then tried to make others look bad because they tried to get the truth out before and after.

These are the facts, and no matter how you try to cover them up, the truth will always come out.
In today’s paper, I responded with this:

Teacher Glenn Perry is “personally” offended by Rob Hynek’s charge that schools feed our kids misinformation. He then proves Mr. Hynek correct by rattling off ignorant, simpleminded inanities about the Iraq War—the President knowingly lied, no WMDs, blah blah blah. Curiously for an educator, he also displays an apparent desire to see politicians with which he disagrees “send their own children” to war. To state the obvious, nobody “sends” their children into an all-volunteer military.

These horses have been beaten to death (I’m starting to feel like a broken record debunking the same lies over & over again whenever liberals tell them), and serious observers already know Mr. Perry & his ilk are all wet. The education angle, though, is worth delving into. He wants us to believe we’ve nothing to fear from our schools, yet instead of talking about education, he spends most of his letter ranting about Iraq—proving that, yes Virginia, we do indeed have something to fear from our schools.

As a 2006 Fond du Lac High School graduate, I was blessed to have many outstanding teachers. But I also encountered some teachers who were precisely the kind of liberal fanatics Rob Hynek warns us about, hyper-partisans for whom the Left matters more than the students.

People of Fond du Lac County, Glenn Perry and others like him are teaching your kids. Keep that in mind next time your School Board asks for your trust and support.
UPDATE: Props to Keith Hellwig for taking on indoctrination, as well.

Responding to Iraq Lies

The Reporter has published my latest letter, a brief rundown of lie vs. truth in Iraq.

The truth about Iraq:


Lie: “Bush lied about WMDs.”

Truth: 2002’s National Intelligence Estimate concluded “Iraq is continuing … its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs.” British, German, French, Russian, Chinese and Israeli intelligence all agreed. The Robb-Silberman Commission found “no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community’s pre-war assessments.” We found 1.77 metric tons of uranium. Polish forces found chemical warheads. Charles Duelfer testified that Hussein intended to restart his programs, and there’s reason to believe WMDs were smuggled to Syria.

Lie: “Iraq’s unrelated to terrorism.”

Truth: A few examples to the contrary: We’ve found rolls of jihadists trained in Iraq at places like Salman Pak. We know of repeated meetings between Iraqi and al-Qaeda operatives, including the planning meeting for the
USS Cole bombing. Jihadists have found safe haven in Iraq.

Lie: “U.S. forces terrorize innocent Iraqis.”

Truth: Almost all troops have fought heroically and humanely. Incidentally, antiwar hero Jesse MacBeth, a supposed Iraq vet who “confessed” to partaking in American atrocities against Iraqi civilians, was recently exposed as a fraud who never once set foot in Iraq.

Lie: “Iraq’s a civil war.”

Truth: Writing for
Middle East Quarterly, Sgt. David Patten explains: “While the government is weak, there is no political force presenting it with a serious challenge. Iraq is, indeed, an unstable nation, but there is little danger of regime change, the ultimate purpose of a civil war. The armed groups most likely to participate in an eventual civil war lack both the capacity and the will to enter into such a conflict in earnest at the present time…[but] Premature withdrawal could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, creating the conditions for a civil war that do not currently exist.”
“Without victory, there is no survival.” – Winston Churchill

Man’s Inhumanity to Man…& the Spin Defending It

Back on April 5, the Reporter ran this pro-life letter:

Abortion: ‘Man’s inhumanity to man’

Keith Kramer

Because abortion cannot be defended on its own merits, population controllers argue for a woman’s right to choose, never about what is being chosen.

Choosing abortion always kills the innocent glimmer of light within our very dark world. A grieving time for life, our society begs healing from questions still to be asked; yet a man’s intellect never quite permits asking, lest complacency flee like dried dandelion fluff.

We would dwell beyond the snares of “man’s inhumanity to man,” leaving inhumanity at the door of the Nazi holocaust. Now that we are the enforcer, we justify atrocity as somehow necessary and excusable.

“I tremble for my country when I recall that God is just.”—Thomas Jefferson

Today this response appeared:

Brent Schmitz

Mr. Keith Kraemer asserts in his letter to the editor on Thursday (April 5) that “abortion cannot be defended on its own merits,” and proceeds to refer to pro-choice Americans as “population controllers,” evoking images of the government mandated infanticide and involuntary sterilizations of parents that have occurred in China for the past decades.

It’s equally safe to assume that there won’t be a mass program to imprison & kill Jews in the United States, too. Does that mean we can’t attribute such a desire to neo-Nazis operating within the country? Furthermore, while a variety of motivations prop up abortion (all of them sick), there is a very real movement of “population controllers” on the Left, as evidenced by
Mark Morford of the San Francisco Gate.

By focusing on abortion as “inhumanity,” Mr. Kraemer ignores the vital question of this issue, “When does human life begin?” I am neither a doctor nor a theologian, and do not presume to answer this question with an assertion, though Mr. Kraemer feels no such apprehension.

I suspect Mr. Kramer “feels no such apprehension” about accepting unborn humanity as a given because we live in an age where that fact ought to be
as clear as that the sun rises in the morning. I think that, considering the length of the average Opinion letter, Kramer focused on a point that needed to be heard.

I would ask him what qualifications he has to assert the beginning of life at conception. This position, if supported adequately, is certainly valid, and thus would render abortion immoral, but Mr. Kraemer has given us no evidence to support his conjecture.

I also find it interesting that Mr. Kraemer compares a pro-choice society to Nazism without acknowledging that there is doubt in whether or not abortion terminates a human life—there is no such doubt that millions of innocents died in the Holocaust.

Actually, the only doubt is among those who want abortion to be legal. In reality,
“life begins at conception” is a scientific fact. But Mr. Schmitz’s acknowledgement of doubt points to another flaw in the case for abortion: unless science could unequivocally establish that life begins at some point after conception, to terminate something you understand might be life is a clearly-evil act.

Mr. Kraemer ends his letter with a quotation from Thomas Jefferson. I will do the same. “Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.” Mr. Kraemer, defend your position without invoking religious dogma, which cannot be argued against, and our country can begin to have a serious debate about the moral dilemma that is abortion.

The most serious debate our country ever had was about the moral dilemma that is slavery. And that is the evil to which Jefferson referred when he trembled for his country at the thought of God’s justice. Does Schmitz think Jefferson’s invocation of “religious dogma” invalidated his disgust for slavery? Did the
explicitly-religious rhetoric invoked by the rest of the Founding Fathers supporting the overall concept of liberty invalidate the American Revolution or the Constitutional Convention? What about the deep influence religion held on Abraham Lincoln? Or Churchill’s calls to fight for “the survival of Christian civilization”?

Maybe the issues revolving around America’s birth, slavery, the Civil War, and World War II don’t count as “serious.”

Dad Takes on Petri

Like father, like son:

Nothing to do with ‘free thinking’

Bill Zeleske labels Jim Kiser (outgoing Fond du Lac County Republican Party vice chair) and Holly Schwefel (outgoing Fond du Lac County Republican Party chair) blind partisans for condemning Rep. Tom Petri’s Iraq resolution vote.

Mr. Zeleske’s ridiculous, overblown rhetoric is itself a pretty good example of blind partisanship. But a much bigger problem is when Democrats (assisted by enablers like Petri) put their desire to damage the administration ahead of the good of the country.

Is there any excuse to be where we are after four years in Iraq? None.

Is it fair to condemn the administration for its handling of the war? Absolutely.

However, there is a big difference between identifying the administration’s failings and signing on to a resolution that will serve only to give hope to those fighting our troops: The terrorists believe that they can wait us out if they keep killing, every death bringing them closer to the day the American people give up.

I believe that Petri stuck his finger in the air and acted accordingly. There is no honor in decision by public opinion poll, made when no other course of action appears to be politically safe. Mr. Petri has not offered leadership regarding the war over the last four years. He now believes that jumping to the anti side is politically expedient.

Petri offers the partition of Iraq as a solution, but this is just a shabby device to cover our exit. Anyone who thinks that the Iraqis will neatly divide themselves into three, absent the force of American arms, is delusional.

Would Zeleske and (David) Beaster be praising Petri for showing “personal integrity” had he openly criticized the president for not fighting hard enough in Iraq? Of course not.

Their attack on Kiser and Schwefel has nothing to do with “free thinking” politicians or “personal integrity”, but rather is about their own lack of it.

Paul Freiburger

Media Bias Consumption

Editorial: Another ‘451’ lesson: As mainstream media struggles, democracy wanes

As Fond du Lac Reads! reaches its closing chapter, we stand in awe of author Ray Bradbury’s fortune-telling capabilities.

In his “Fahrenheit 451” masterwork, he envisioned a culture in which literature — and, by extension, serious journalism — are as obsolete as the democracy that once relied upon them.

We take that message seriously. The names you see at the top of this page represent the editorial board of this newspaper, and not one of us lives in a gilded ivory tower. We are quite aware of the public’s perception of what we do and how we do it, day in and day out.

Depending on whom you ask, The Reporter is either too liberal for conservatives OR too conservative for liberals; either pandering to the needs of minority communities OR not sensitive enough to the increasingly diverse face of Fond du Lac; either spending too much time focused on outlying communities OR ignoring everyone but our urban center. The paradoxes seem endless.

If I had a nickel for every time I heard this line! Media lefties love to turn criticisms against themselves into “he said/she said” affairs: who’s to say who’s right?

In short, our daily newspaper is confronting the same challenges faced by every other “traditional media” outlet in the country, if not the world — from the New York Times to the local evening broadcast. It is the bane of any news gathering organization that tries to appeal to a broad swath of the public at a time when “custom,” “niche” and “segmentation” are the new buzzwords of choice.

Indeed, the hunger for information, entertainment (and their devilish offspring “infotainment”) has never been higher.

What has changed — what Bradbury so wisely foresaw — is the way in which consumers want it presented. Objectivity, be damned:

– Those on the left end of the political spectrum can read The Progressive or Mother Jones, tune in to the BBC or Air America each night and, perhaps, read Anna Quindlen’s latest novel. Nary a right-leaning thought need ever enter their heads.

– Those on the far right can consume The Weekly Standard or The American Spectator, savor the witticisms of Rush Limbaugh, enjoy the Fox News Network and kick back with Ann Coulter’s most recent opus. Any whiff of liberalism can be scrubbed from their existence.


Calling the Fox News CHANNEL a right-wing venue actually exposes that the Reporter editorial staff does indeed have a liberal bias. For one thing, FNC’s resident “conservative” Bill O’Reilly
believes in global warming & denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. For another, they employ more than a few liberals & other pundits who clearly aren’t conservative: Geraldo Rivera, Alan Colmes, Greta Van Susteren, Mort Kondracke, Mara Liasson, Nina Easton, Neal Gabler, Jane Hall…Fox Senior Judicial Analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, commonly offers legal interpretations unfavorable to the Right. Fox’s straight reporting does give both sides of the story, and with regular guests like Jane Fleming, Bob Beckel, Wesley Clark, Ellis Henican, Laura Schwartz, Al Sharpton, Jonathon Turley, and that Farrakhan henchthug who’s on Hannity & Colmes all the time, the Left is always amply represented.

And, for the first time in U.S. history, individuals on both sides of the socio-political spectrum can spend a lifetime without having exposure to a thought, notion, idea or position that in any way offends their sensibilities.

This, of course, is an exciting prospect from a consumer point of view. Imagine a world where niche after niche after niche is tailored specifically to our personal biases, thus freeing us from having to cope with anything that might be “disconcerting” or “off-putting.”

Kate
hit this nail on the head: “No doubt there are some who read, or watch, only things that agrees with their point of view. However, any reasonably intelligent conservative also reads the ‘other side’.” Also, most conservative commentary I’m aware of tackles the Left’s arguments head-on.

God forbid we wrestle with any issues that might make our days — how shall we put this? — less pleasant. Indeed, why sweat the future of Social Security when, oh, we can get live graveside coverage of Anna Nicole Smith’s burial?

As Ray Bradbury presciently stated in his 1953 novel: “If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him: give him one. Better yet, give him none … “

As the segmenting of America continues, we fear the loss of the proverbial “town square,” that safe place where neighbors of all creeds, beliefs and stripes can converge to exchange ideas and weigh them in a civil manner. (Too many nightly news shows suggest that the “winners” of such debates aren’t those with the best arguments, but the pundits who yell the loudest).


Ah, the obligatory “Loudmouth O’Reilly” slap! Has anyone at the Reporter even sat through an entire episode of the Factor?

Simply put, “Fahrenheit 451” foresaw the death of “we, the people” when individual citizens only care about “I, the person.”

Indeed, the novel’s cautionary message rings more true today than it did more than a half century ago.

And if that doesn’t frighten you, it should.

Reporter Point-Counterpoint

Two opinions on the state Court race today. First, Senator Glenn Grothman weighs in:

The election for Supreme Court on Tuesday is one of the most important in years.

Governors serve for four years, state legislators for two or four, but Supreme Court justices serve for 10 years. As courts become more activist, they can do more harm to our business climate than government bureaucrats. They can order government to spend more money and drive up taxes.

Little old Wisconsin has attracted national interest in the Wall Street Journal for having one of the worst Supreme Courts in the nation.

I’ve known Judge Annette Ziegler for 10 years and am confident she will stand up for justice against the activist wing of the court. Her opponent is being supported by the same Madison trial attorneys who have created the current mess.

Please join me in voting for Annette Ziegler.

Why would Clifford continue the activist mess? Maybe it has something to do with
this story…or this one

And in this corner, we have Ted & Hedy Eischeid:

We have watched the current State Supreme Court race between Linda Clifford and Annette Ziegler with some interest.

Such non-partisan races can be tough ones for voters trying to make the best choice. In addition, several interest groups are running ads for both candidates that simply make the choice more confusing.

However, there is one standard that decides who we will vote for and that is integrity. Judicial candidates can’t speak about how they will vote on future cases, but we as voters can look at their records and decide which of the candidates will be a fair judge who will decide cases with intelligence and integrity.

Given this perspective, we will be voting for Linda Clifford. Mrs. Clifford has an outstanding legal record, one of integrity and intelligence. Unfortunately, her opponent, Annette Ziegler, has clearly violated the Judicial Code of Conduct multiple times.

If Judge Ziegler can’t follow a simple ethical code expected of all judges, how can she fairly hear cases brought before the highest court in the state? We don’t care how much experience she has as a judge — flawed ethical behavior as a judge equals a flawed judge. Judge Ziegler’s version of integrity simply doesn’t pass the smell test.

Based on this critical issue of integrity, we will be voting for Linda Clifford on April 3. For the State Supreme Court, integrity does matter. Vote for a breath of fresh air on Tuesday.


OK, class, what’s missing in this letter? Anyone? If your guess was “What ethical violations?” you’re correct!

For more information on the scandals of the race, check out
this article from Fact Check, which says that while “The investigation by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission may clear that up, albeit after the election,” there’s currently “no evidence that the Zieglers got any financial benefit from her rulings.”

WI Supreme Court: The Race Is On

Two letters today on the Wisconsin Supreme Court race:

Experience makes Ziegler best choice

On April 3, voters have a clear choice when selecting the next Supreme Court Justice.

Judge Annette Ziegler, who has been on the bench for 10 years, is the only judge running for the Supreme Court.

Judge Ziegler’s opponent, Madison immigration lawyer Linda Clifford, has never been a judge on any level.

Judge Ziegler is known to be tough on crime and has put hundreds of criminals behind bars for a total of over 1,000 years.

Judge Ziegler has been endorsed by a majority of Wisconsin’s sheriffs and district attorneys. Republicans and Democrats alike are backing her campaign.

In fact, every single law enforcement group that has endorsed in the Supreme Court race has endorsed Judge Ziegler.

Judge Ziegler has been endorsed by a majority of her fellow judges. Judges from every part of Wisconsin agree that Judge Ziegler’s experience and background make her the right choice for the Supreme Court.

Judge Ziegler is the clear choice for the Supreme Court. Please join me in voting for Judge Ziegler on Tuesday, April 3.

Linda Becker

Clifford stands up for working people

With the spring election less then two weeks away many people are just becoming aware of the race for the State Supreme Court.

This race isn’t about who is a Republican and who is a Democrat — it’s a nonpartisan race. That means we have to look to see who the most qualified candidate is.

I feel that person is Linda Clifford.

Linda has 32 years of legal experience and is the only candidate who has ever argued a case in front of the Supreme Court.

Linda worked her way through college as a union steelworker. During law school she clerked at the Department of Justice. She also served as assistant attorney general and now is a full partner at a Madison law firm.

Linda will stand up for the rights of consumers and working people. Linda also has consistently stood up to protect the environment and take on polluters. Linda has earned many endorsements, including that of U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold and former Gov. Lee Dreyfus.

One of the few areas I can think of where a judge can legitimately “take a stand” for working people is eminent domain. Can we take this to mean Clifford doesn’t want the government taking people’s homes?

On April 3 I think the choice is easy. Vote for Linda Clifford — working with real people, solving real problems.

Sue Reich

Victory & Defeat Surge in the Reporter’s Pages

Recently, two local Republicans (who I’ve had the honor of working with over the past few years)—Holly Schwefel & Jim Kiser—had this editorial published in the Reporter:
“The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.” — Abraham Lincoln
These words are as true today as they were nearly 200 years ago.
We are in a struggle. We have endured falls. We are not only at war, but we are in a fight for our lives and for the very existence of this country that we so dearly love.
It is easy to forget this reality as we tend to our daily business. It’s easy to separate ourselves over time from the terrorist attacks five years ago that catapulted our nation into this war. It’s easy to say, “Stop the war, bring home the troops, and give peace a chance,” yet have no other credible plan.
However, no one ever said this was going to be easy. No one ever promised that the terrorists would lie down and surrender their weapons and their ideologies and their hatred. In fact, President Bush warned from the very beginning that this would be a long battle and that it would require much sacrifice, not only from the American military, but from the American people.
Only two weeks ago, the U.S. House of Representatives, with the support of 17 wayward “Republicans,” decided to take the easy way out through passage of a resolution condemning President Bush’s plan for a troop surge.
Their very public vote now deserves a very public response. In supporting this resolution, these “Republicans” gave our troops and our president a vote of no confidence. They gave not only hope, but validation to the enemy — the terrorists that would rejoice to see you and me dead in the streets.
These “Republicans” told the enemy that if they only resist long enough, America will give up and turn its back on our friends. These “Republicans” sent a message across the globe that not even the Bush Administration’s own party is willing to stand up for what is right.
But worst of all, these 17 Republicans turned their backs on the people who elected them — the same people who re-elected President Bush because of his tough action against terror and for his ability to lead during times of crisis.
Why is it so difficult for these Republicans to see how much their actions affect the morale of our soldiers and their families? Why are they so blinded by stature and chairmanships and re-election campaigns? Why do we stand by while they continue to prove how out of touch they are with our American way of life?
True Republicans support “peace through strength,” which does not mean looking for a fight, but most surely doesn’t mean backing down from one. True Republicans have a fundamental passion for freedom and for protecting that freedom, whatever the cost.
True Republicans work to secure our country today so that the children of tomorrow may have peace. True Republicans never turn their backs on the brave troops who daily risk their lives to ensure that we are able to enjoy all the blessings of this great land.
So, shame on those 17 Republicans for being out of touch with our American reality; shame on them for not recognizing the country’s need for unity rather than politics; shame on them for turning their backs on American troops; shame on them for giving hope to the enemy; and, what a shame it is that in this very Republican Sixth District, our own Congressman Tom Petri was one of those 17.
Predictably, it didn’t take long for a liberal genius to enlighten them:
Mr. (Jim) Kiser and Ms. (Holly) Schwefel, I would like to thank you for your editorial on March 6 concerning Rep. Tom Petri’s recent vote.
Perhaps we will see it reprinted in high school textbooks in the year 2050 to explain to future generations why the United States did not survive to see its 250th birthday. Blind partisanship is as dangerous to our future as Communism or terrorism ever was.
The Republicans had complete control of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of our government for six years. They accomplished nothing with Social Security reform, aside from a weak and confusing prescription drug plan. They achieved little to solve the health-care problem, they looked the other way as the president set up secret prisons in Eastern Europe and condoned and even encouraged torture of terrorist suspects, and suspended habeas corpus, a process put in place by civilized society 900 years ago.
I could go on but the point in question is the troop surge in Iraq. We have seen the administration completely mishandle Iraq from the nonexistent WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) to the “stay-the-course” mentality. More than 3,000 soldiers were killed, 25,000 injured and a civil war springing up in the middle of it all. How can anyone have confidence that suddenly, after four years, despite all the signs that tell us otherwise, the tide will be turned and democracy will flourish?

The Republican Party has been hijacked by the neo-conservatives. We need free-thinking politicians who have the personal integrity to do what Rep. Petri did.
When given the choice of what is best for the country and what is best for the party, Mr. Petri chooses the former. You choose the latter and for that you should be deeply ashamed.
Bill Zeleske
If Holly & Jim are blind partisans because they advocate the conservative position on the war, then what does that make Mr. Zeleske, who assails no less than seven supposed Republican flaws, and then raises the Left’s knee-jerk specter of “neo-conservatives”?

(Oh, and I’m sure history books will blame the Right for all of America’s troubles for many years to come—but not because some conservative-induced downfall.)

So what’s my take? I’m cautiously optimistic on the surge. Though I’m not sure 21,000 will be enough troops in the long run, we’re already seeing results:

Bomb deaths have gone down 30 percent in Baghdad since the U.S.-led security crackdown began a month ago. Execution-style slayings are down by nearly half. The once frequent sound of weapons has been reduced to episodic, and downtown shoppers have returned to outdoor markets — favored targets of car bombers. There are signs of progress in the campaign to restore order in Iraq, starting with its capital city.

The plan is substantive enough that it deserves a chance, and the support of all who seriously want victory in Iraq. As a non-binding resolution, this condemnation bill Petri voted for serves no other purpose than to distance politicians from both President Bush and the idea that we’re going to stay in Iraq until the mission is accomplished. Whatever the intentions behind it, the effect is just as my friends said: to give “our troops and our president a vote of no confidence. They gave not only hope, but validation to the enemy.”

Petri’s alternative is to partition Iraq into three basically-autonomous provinces for the Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds. Offhand, here are just a few of the problems I see in this plan: 1.) While certain sects dominate certain parts of Iraq, each has its share of minorities. Does Petri expect that it would be easy (or easier than the surge, at the very least) to forcibly uproot, say, Shiites from their homes in Iraqi Kurdistan & just plop them elsewhere nice & neat? 2.) Petri acknowledges his plan “will require negotiations over territory and oil revenues.” You think THAT’S gonna be a walk in the park? 3.) He also mentions “policing to keep the different parties apart,” which emphasizes that he’s advocating an Iraq governed by religious segregation. Won’t that serve as validation to the various bigotries that animate a segment of the violence in Iraq? After all, saying that segregation is the only way to resolve sectarian animosity suggests that there’s something natural & permanent to it. It seems to me that’s the very opposite of what our war against religious fanaticism should be.

But the real shame in Petri’s vote isn’t rejecting Bush, or touting a foolish alternative. It’s the fact that Petri has kept his mouth pretty much shut about Iraq all this time, and especially the surge plan, which has been on the table since early January. So the man we send to Washington to represent us doesn’t tell us that he opposes a major Republican position until after he casts his vote? That might be Bill Zeleske’s idea of “personal integrity;” it’s not mine.