MB Civic

To the Editor:

Re “The Liberal Inquisition” (column, July 9):

David Brooks writes that a “liberal inquisition” against Senator Joseph I. Lieberman “has been reduced to one issue, the war.”

How callous of Mr. Brooks to minimize the death, maiming and blinding of more than 21,000 young Americans, the affliction of tens of thousands with combat-related psychiatric illnesses, and the squandering of more than a third of a trillion dollars of national wealth in a senseless war as somehow just “one issue.”

Senator Lieberman remains a leading proponent of this disastrous war, which he advocated from the start. Holding him accountable at the ballot box for this fiasco is not an inquisition; it’s democracy.

Sean B. Goldrick
Riverside, Conn., July 9, 2006

•

To the Editor:

The Connecticut Democrats’ challenge to Senator Joseph I. Lieberman reflects their supreme disillusionment in a person to whom they entrusted their faith.

By calling that opposition an “inquisition,” David Brooks desecrates democracy at work. One hopes that enough enlightened voters will recognize the ploy and choose to oust an apologist for the Bush administration’s abuse of power and ill-gained spoils.

Martha D. Trowbridge
New York, July 9, 2006

•

To the Editor:

It is a credit to David Brooks and an irony that it is he who recognizes the integrity and history of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman’s service to his constituents and the country.

At this time of demonizing “the other,” it is refreshing to have someone admit that he doesn’t have a monopoly on truth and that there may be some merit in more than one position or ideology.

It would have been an honor if a fellow Democrat had recognized that Mr. Lieberman, or anyone, could have differing but respectable positions whether or not one holds the same viewpoint.

Lois Frank
Atlanta, July 9, 2006

•

To the Editor:

What “liberal inquisition” is David Brooks talking about? Senator Joseph I. Lieberman lost me the day he stood on the Senate floor and denounced President Bill Clinton for a personal flaw. I was disgusted by Senator Lieberman’s holier-than-thou stance and his uncalled-for attack on a Democratic president.

Now I don’t understand why Mr. Lieberman and other Democratic senators aren’t denouncing this Republican president’s disastrous actions in Iraq. At least four months before President Bush invaded Iraq, a lot of us knew with dead certainty that he was determined to launch this illegal and immoral war. Why didn’t they know it?

This is no inquisition; I simply want better representatives.

Kelly Davis
Ridgefield, Conn., July 9, 2006

•

To the Editor:

Just one of the myths that the war on Iraq has spawned is that opposition to it is a “liberal” position.

What has liberalism, whose essential bias is the protection of political and civil liberties, got to do with opposition to an unjust war?

Many of us conservatives can’t help but see an analogy between this misrepresentation and the portrayal of the war against Saddam Hussein as a war against terrorism.

I once proudly identified Senator Joseph I. Lieberman and myself as fellow New (conservative) Democrats. I won’t vote for Mr. Lieberman in the primary, but I’m still a New Democrat.

Kenneth Barnes
Mansfield, Conn., July 9, 2006

•

To the Editor:

David Brooks once again displays his talent for unintended irony.

He writes that Ned Lamont, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman’s opponent, “has neither expertise in foreign affairs nor any specific knowledge of Iraq, and he has struggled to come up with a plan for what we should now do there.”

Holy synapse misfiring! Doesn’t that describe George W. Bush to a T?

Jacob Plotkin
East Lansing, Mich., July 9, 2006