Ryan ChartrandBrian Eller supports President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq, which though contrary to my own opinion, is a valid viewpoint – after all, a staggering 26 percent of Americans share this view (Jan. 9 Gallup/USA Today poll).
My problem is not Mr. Eller’s opinion, but rather his method of presentation. I would like to discuss all the problems with this column, but since there is a limit to the length of the letters, this endeavor would be impossible without a center spread.
Ignoring for the moment Mr. Eller’s ignorance regarding Vietnam (if he wants to simplify war to the terms “winning” and “losing,” it was Nixon who withdrew from Vietnam; he was the one “for defeat”), lets look at Mr. Eller’s implication that Democrats have been for defeat throughout history.
Last time I checked, the American presidents who led us to victories in WWI and WWII were Wilson, FDR and Truman – some of the Democrats who “consistently oppose successful strategies that help America.” As for the vague and biased poll question from Fox News which Mr. Eller quotes to support Democrats wanting to lose in Iraq (define “succeed”), I am fairly certain that if I constructed a question in a similar manner and asked Cal Poly Republicans: “are you in favor of Americans dying in Iraq?” a majority would say that they are not.
By Mr. Eller’s definition, these Republicans would be in favor of American “defeat” in Iraq, since an American “victory” is impossible without the loss of more American lives.
Johannes Lichtman
English junior