Letters to the Editors

Bush should reconsider plans to attack Iraq

Instead of making oblique references to a preemptive strike against Iraq, as he did at West Point recently, President Bush should heed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told him that a war against Saddam Hussein would be unwise. According to the top military officials, an offensive in Iraq could endanger the lives of at least 200,000 American servicemen in bloody ground combat, and might prompt Hussein to use biological and chemical weapons to strengthen his hand.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff surely realize better than anyone that war is not only fought on a strategic battlefield, it also takes a human toll. Bush should ask himself whether ousting a weaker, and by some accounts more cooperative, Saddam Hussein is really worth thousands of U.S. and Iraqi lives and regional instability.
-- Makinzy Northagen, St. Petersburg

This war not worth the risks

President Bush is beginning to scare me with his talk of attacking Iraq. He persists with this despite the contrary advice of others far more knowledgeable than he about military matters.

To date he has escaped criticism about his use of U.S. troops only because most people fear being considered unpatriotic. I'm past that. He doesn't know enough about war to get us into another one where the gain won't be worth the real cost. The lives of our GIs should not be risked in pursuit of Bush's poorly thought-out objective.
-- Bill Donofrio, Spring Hill

War talk is a convenient distraction

In his column, Earlier doubts mirror my present ones (June 3), William Raspberry ponders the reasons why George W. Bush seems so hell bent on dreaming up new rationales for attacking Iraq.

It seems to me that he misses the most obvious reason: Bush needs to sustain a crisis atmosphere so people will be too distracted to notice that his presidency has been an unmitigated disaster.

His war on terrorism has been an utter failure. Osama bin Laden ("wanted dead or alive") and Mullah Omar may still be at large planning new horrors for us and al-Qaida may be regrouping in Pakistan. Who knows? Certainly not the Bush administration.

Who was behind the anthrax attacks? Will they strike again? Don't ask Bush administration officials. They don't know.

The economy is in disarray. When Bush assumed office, the country had finally attained a budget surplus. Now thanks to his tax cut, the country will have deficits for years to come, as many economists predicted well before Sept. 11.

The Justice Department is trampling on individual rights to the point that even William Safire, the noted conservative columnist, is alarmed about Attorney General John Ashcroft's gutting guidelines put in place a generation ago to prevent the abuse of police power by the federal government.

The environment is being threatened on all sides. Most recently, the administration finally admitted that global warming is a reality, but the president favors voluntary measures to slow the rate of gas emissions.

Bush's biggest single campaign contributor, the CEO of Enron, Ken Lay, took Enron into failure, and even as he was telling his employees that they should keep their stock, he was selling his before the price plummeted.

Consider the question Ronald Reagan made famous (adjusted for the fact that Bush has been in office for less than two years): Am I better off now than I was two years ago? How many people could answer affirmatively?

So Bush and his handlers (Dick Cheney, et al.) must keep us from asking that question no matter what it takes. And what better way to accomplish this than to bombard us almost daily with terrifying warnings, to whip us into a panic, and even, finally, to start a war?
-- Arthur Clarke, Tampa

Change of venue suggested

Re: John Walker Lindh.

I agree that the American Taliban cannot get a fair trial in Alexandria, Va. The trial should be moved to New York City.
-- Al de la Lastra, Treasure Island

Power grab in the name of security

Republicans were always great on talking about eliminating Cabinet departments to reduce bureaucracy and spending. But no more!

President Bush says he wants to create a new Department of Homeland Security that would begin with 169,000 employees and a budget of $37.4-billion. This will turn into the most ambitious, taxpayer-funded power grab Washington has seen in decades.

By reforming existing structure and agencies, a functional White House could make the necessary changes far more quickly and far more effectively than with a new Cabinet secretary. What is required is a president capable of assuming the awesome responsibility and authority that this nation affords a commander in chief. George Bush should step up to that place right now!
-- Ken W. Poulsen, Tarpon Springs

Protecting the little ones

Re: Growing up scared, June 17.

I was interested in writer Bill Duryea's article Growing up scared, focusing on the effects Sept. 11 had on our children. As the parent of a 3-year-old and a 5-year-old, I was very concerned about what their reactions would be to the events.

In my house, they were shielded from any knowledge of it. We only watched television after they had gone to bed, and newspapers were quickly checked for disturbing images before being taken to a back room. I had family members suggest that my wife and I should tell them about it, fearing they would hear it from someone else. But in the chilling days just after the attacks, the overriding feeling we had was to protect them by withholding information. This allowed for the context of time, which in many ways does heal.

We, as parents, were struggling with our emotions, but we were very aware that our reactions would be picked up by our children. So we worked very hard on being calm, consistent, and most of all, extremely loving. What possible positive effect could there have been from us telling our 3- and 5-year-old that some bad men flew a plane into a building and a lot of people died? The answer was pretty simple to me: no positive effect whatsoever.

It has been nine months and our kids are normal and happy. I know that they will hear about the attacks soon enough. But in the new reality of terrorism we live in, I choose to focus my attentions on the millions of people who are good-hearted and hard-working. There are so many more good people in the world than bad, and a little child needs to be exposed to them. They will encounter the darker sides of human nature soon enough.
-- Spencer Briggs, Clearwater

A major source of embarrassment

Re: Islamic group blasts pastor's comments, June 12.

As a Southern Baptist, I take strong issue with some of the comments of the Rev. Jerry Vines, a Florida Baptist pastor, when he spoke at the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis last week. He and others like him continue to be a major source of embarrassment to most Southern Baptists. Vines' comment that Mohammed was a pedophile is nothing more than a cheap shot to ride on the problems faced by the Catholic Church. I will guess Vines does not have a shred of evidence for his claim of pedophilia or demon possession.

There seems to be a rule or code among the SBC leadership not to rebuke one another. When asked, Richard Land, Albert Mohler, Jack Graham and James Merritt, all top leaders, refused to voice any criticism. As bad as all that is, it easily overshadows a much more important issue. Vines' comment that many of this country's problems can be blamed on religious pluralism, is in fact a blatant attack on religious liberty. Most Baptists have historically spoken out for freedom of religion and defended it. Vines is effectively saying he does not, but puts a wrong twist on it.

At issue should not be which religion is as good as, better, or best, or whether any are true or false. The issue needs to be whether all religions will be treated equally and fairly in the public forum so all people can fairly and independently make their own personal choice. Vines, and much of the new leadership of the SBC, is not in favor of religious liberty as a majority of people understand it, and that is a very serious problem.
-- Clem White, St. Petersburg

Misinformed, offensive rants

Re: Islamic group blasts pastor's comments.

This article tells how Muslims were upset at the insulting, inaccurate, bigoted and rude remarks made by the Rev. Jerry Vines, a Baptist pastor at the Southern Baptist Convention.

Yes, of course Muslims were outraged at the misinformed, offensive rants of someone who is responsible for spiritually shaping and educating a large number of people. It was even more disheartening to read that the president of the Southern Baptist Convention has refused to renounce the hateful words of the Rev. Vines and instead endorsed his rhetoric. With all the bashing Islam has suffered in the past months, these false representations are the last thing we need and only serve to divide Americans and drive the prejudice against Muslims.

But that is not the only problem. I am upset and saddened at the disrespect given to one of the greatest men who ever lived. As a Muslim (who has studied and knows all the details about the prophet Mohammed and his life. I know that the statements the Rev. Vines made are far, far from the truth.

Read history and you'll see all the great things the Prophet Mohammed did for humanity. Before his prophethood, he was known by all the people in his city as the honest and the truthful. During his prophethood, he proclaimed the truth and spread honesty. Given all that he did for mankind, the least I can do is defend his name.
-- Amal Kurdi, Tampa

A troubling arrogance

I fully support the Southern Baptists' right to gather, worship, share ideas, etc. It is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution -- as it should be.

My main problem with them is their arrogance in dealing with folks who don't believe as they do. The two articles in the June 12 Times (Protesters disrupt Baptists and Islamic group blasts pastor's comments) illustrate this troubling character. Specifically, the way they dealt with the protesters from Soulforce, a Christian group that believes in diversity in Christianity, and the comments made about the Islamic faith were appalling.

I ask them: Is this a good way to convert people to their side? Additionally, have you ever considered that perhaps the Southern Baptist interpretation of Christianity might not be a part of "mainstream" religious thought anymore? What would Jesus say?
-- Daniel M. Moon, Lutz

Standing firm for their beliefs

Re: Protesters disrupt Baptists, June 12.

I applaud the Southern Baptists for standing firm for what they believe in. All too often, Christians are afraid to be politically incorrect and therefore ignore, go along with or tolerate actions that are against their beliefs so as not to step on anyone's toes. We should stand up and unite and let our voices be heard. It is what Jesus taught us. Amen to the Baptists from a Roman Catholic.
-- Kathy Myers, Palm Harbor

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright