Moderates oppose the war in Iraq

Published 9:00 pm Saturday, August 19, 2006

Two letters in the Aug. 17 Herald lambaste Connecticut voters for dumping Joe Lieberman and selecting Ned Lamont. One writer actually states that this shows that there is no room in the Democratic Party for moderates. The other worries about whether Lamont understands the complex issues involved in running this country (has he checked out President Bush’s grasp of world history and diplomatic nuance lately?). Obviously these writers are not Democrats, but conservatives who wish to slow down the American peoples’ rush to abandon the failed right-wing policies our country has been gripped by over the past five years.

Some media continue to support the idea that being against the war in Iraq makes one some kind of left-wing extremist. That is simply not true. I consider myself to be a moderate and I have opposed our invasion of Iraq from the very beginning; not because I had some foreknowledge of the disastrous outcome, but because I did not want our country to embark upon an unjustified and immoral war. The reasons given to us were a complete fabrication. The real reasons have nothing to do with freedom, and everything to do with commerce and exerting power; causes I would not send my child, or anyone else’s, to die for. Most Americans have come to realize that “staying the course” in Iraq will only exacerbate the civil war which has already begun there. We need leaders who will stand up and say, “Enough is enough!”

Here’s a news flash: Ned Lamont is a moderate. Joe Lieberman is a conservative who sucked up to this corrupt administration in order to secure his political position. Should the voters of Connecticut have rewarded him for that? Hardly. I applaud their wisdom in recognizing the need for change, and voting with their consciences.

Gina Parry

Snohomish