ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Buchanan's bunk

| Friday, July 28, 2006

Hard as Pat Buchanan tries to hide his anti-Israel sentiments, he always falls short, at least to the discerning eye (" Syria to the forefront ," July 26 and

Hezbollah's aggression against Israel should have gone unmet• So seems to be Buchanan's implication. Israel is fighting an unconventional enemy that uses civilian infrastructure to transit personnel, supplies and weaponry.

Since the government of Lebanon is unable to exert authority over Hezbollah and stop its aggression, what is Israel's alternative• Israel's enemy hides among the civilian population and wages war from Lebanese communities. What is Israel to do• Give Hezbollah a free hand to attack Israeli cities and towns?

Syria's Bashar al-Assad is merely an "accused enabler of Hezbollah," according to Buchanan. The transiting of supplies and war materials through Syria from Iran is not done without Syria's knowledge or complicity. Iran and Syria, by all accounts, enjoy a de facto alliance. It is laughable to suggest al-Assad is uninvolved in the support of Hezbollah.

Finally, Buchanan offers that peace could come to that troubled region only if Israel negotiates with Syria the return of the Golan Heights and turns over even more land to Hamas, the latter as part of solving the Palestinian question.

Syria, led by terrorist-enablers, and Hamas, an outright terrorist organization, have long been dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Turning over the strategically important Golan Heights and giving more land to Hamas will not result in peace, but will further compromise Israel's security.

It seems that Buchanan suggests for Israel that which Neville Chamberlain got for Great Britain: a peace that invites further aggression and greater loss of innocent life.

Jeff Schmidt McCandless

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me