Vicious attacks aren't convincing

To the editor:

Alan Journet wrote to the editor once again denouncing President Bush. Much like the Democratic Party, Journet expended effort lambasting presidential policy but failed to offer alternative solutions. Journet stated, "They ignore the reality that contradicts policies because the policies are grounded in a blind commitment to uninformed ideology." I would counter that critics ignore the reality that Republicans at least have a plan, whether you agree with it or not. As we near midterm elections, Democrats cannot muster their party's collective will to develop a platform.

Historically, presidents, secretaries of defense and military leaders have disagreed, especially during a time of war. The layers of civilian and military leaders and both political and military thought should be considered a positive in relation to the will of the people. Does Journet remember when military leaders asked a Democratic president for more troops and heavier armor in Somalia? Does he remember when Democrats voted overwhelmingly in support of the Iraq war? Does he remember when a Democratic president was asked for a timeline on Bosnia? Does he remember when a Democratic president's energy policy caused millions to wait in line at gas stations?

Neither Journet nor I can comprehend the magnitude of presidential decisions. However, I'm still given the opportunity to cast a vote to determine who serves me and my interests.

President Bush is being attacked by those with some excellent hindsight, but hindsight, viscous attacks and mockery will not earn my vote.

CHAD CRAFT, Jackson