Events seen through history's prism

To the editor:News flash to Alan Journet (whose television must be stuck on MSNBC or "The Daily Show"): The incoming Senate breakdown is 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and two independents. Independents agreed to caucus with Democrats, but they're still independents.

Historically, the electorate's midterm decision was expected, and, quite frankly, Republicans deserved it. However, CNN's Cafferty was dead on the other day when he remarked, "No one party corners the market on ignorance". Voters were fooled into believing that liberals would legitimize Washington. Liberal Democrats must first find leadership capable of understanding a grade school intelligence quiz before any of us feel warm and fuzzy.

Journet suggested we use the Web to learn about PNAC. I'd counter he should use the Web to study Speaker-elect Pelosi's stated course of action. She has promised not to seek presidential impeachment, not to seek immediate withdrawal from Iraq and not to reduce war funding. Conclusion: Liberals are vowing to stay the course. At least on the aforementioned issues, liberals exhibit some common sense.

We're at war, and war is ugly. Supposed intellectuals should be able to see the war in Iraq as central to the war on terror (yes, we're killing terrorists there), central to controlling Iran and Syria and eventually having some true influence in the Middle East. One can discern corporate and monetary inclinations to this war -- a historical view will allow us to understand that this has always been either an ulterior motive or a cause-and-effect relationship.

CHAD CRAFT, Jackson