Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
© St. Petersburg Times, published September 26, 2002
Temporarily deploying a CentCom team closer to "potential battle zones" might offer immediate advantages in the war against terrorism, but there's good reason not to move the U.S. Central Command permanently to the Persian Gulf. These key personnel and facilities are much more secure on friendly home ground. If CentCom's ability to direct operations were interrupted or impeded by terrorists, it could have grave consequences.
Another argument against moving is the impossibility of being sure where on a 25-nation game board CentCom may unexpectedly need to deploy forces next. A site that seems ideal today might not make sense tomorrow. The generals who conceived CentCom and based it at MacDill deserve more credit than Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld allows by ridiculing its Tampa location.
CentCom's own Web site explains, with deft understatement, that some (Middle Eastern) nations' sensitivities make them "reluctant to host a permanent and relatively large U.S. military presence." Isn't it better to bear slings and arrows from here at home, to paraphrase Shakespeare, than to flee to other turf we're not sure of?Jeff Corydon, retired lieutenant colonel, U.S. Air Force Reserve, Lutz
--
This is not the Gulf of Tonkin
Re: Remember the Gulf of Tonkin, by Gar Alperovitz, Sept. 25.
The idea that the Bush administration's attempts to engage Congress, the American public, our allies, and the United Nations in the defeat of Saddam Hussein parallels Lyndon Johnson's deceit is a stretch unconscionable for a college professor. The differences Alperovitz ignores, and hopes we do also, are obvious to anyone who lived through the Vietnam War:
1. Vietnam was an agrarian nation, as is practically all of Asia, concerned mostly with feeding its people, who were essentially rice farmers posing no threat to anyone. Iraq is an oil-rich nation under the thumb of a military dictator who, through his acquisition and development of the weapons of general, biological and, quite possibly, nuclear warfare, is a threat to everyone.
2. The war in Vietnam was one for independence, first from the French and later from the United States. Should the United States go to war in Iraq, it will be pre-emptive in nature, not to "defend" a country we ourselves created nor to combat an economic and political system that threatens our own, but to destroy those weapons capable of destroying ourselves and the government capable of wielding them.
3. Lyndon Johnson reported a fictional incident and manufactured evidence to provide it credibility to garner public and congressional support to commit combat troops to Vietnam. President Bush has compiled compelling evidence of a factual and extremely dangerous situation about which most of us already suspected and is making his case to the world in forthright fashion.
On the occasion of Stanley Baldwin's 80th birthday, mutual acquaintances solicited Winston Churchill's congratulations. Churchill declined, saying, "I wish Stanley no ill, but it would have been better for Britain had he not been born." Baldwin, you see, was the architect of Britain's policy of appeasing Hitler. Tom Daschle, Al Gore, and the rest of the liberal left ought to take care no one of Churchill's stature has reason to offer such criticism of them.
David A. Highlands, St. Petersburg
Remember the Gulf of Tonkin resolution? I do! Only two U.S. senators of America's 535 representatives voted "no," proving, as is often the case, that voting with the "herd" can have catastrophic results. Just ask the mothers and fathers of America's dead children in Vietnam!
The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was a hastily voted upon "blank check" resolution based on lies that resulted in the death of over 58,000 of America's children -- yes, children. The average age of our fighting men in Vietnam was 19 -- American teenagers!
Now President Bush wants America's so-called "representatives" in Congress to pass another "by all necessary means" resolution that essentially gives the president of the United States of America a "blank check" to do whatever he wants with America's children and America's treasure in Iraq and, you can bet, anywhere else he chooses.
I urge you to put limits in any resolution that places the very lives of America's children in the hands of one man. It wasn't until years later that the resolution was rescinded -- and it wasn't easy.
Been there, done that -- never again. The very lives of our children are at stake!
-- Skip Molander, Seffner
This administration's eagerness for war is obscene. They register frank disappointment and alarm if any development suggests the possibility of a peaceful solution. War is vicious, ugly, nasty, tragic and murderous. We will no doubt slaughter Saddam Hussein's little army and probably lots of noncombatants too. Some of our troops will die also, of course. Even in the best case there are no wars without atrocities on both sides; it is the nature of war.
There should be no enthusiasm. Going to war means we have failed as peacekeepers. Before we become violent, we should be sure there is a grave necessity and that there is no other way to resolve or contain the problem.
Enthusiasm for war is sickening to mature, enlightened people.
-- Robert G. Zeitler, Palm Harbor
Re: Don Wright's "Empty Suit" cartoon, Sept. 23.
President Bush has made his decision to draw a line in the sand for Iraq. It is now decision time at home.
The U.S. Congress and the American people either need to join Bush, or draw our own line in the political sand and say loudly and clearly: "President Bush's foreign policy and military war on terrorism are reckless and irresponsible. We do not agree."
It is:
1. Bad for the economy.
2. Undermining our democracy.
3. Destabilizing the world.
It is time for the Democrats speak up and to tell it like it is. Give us, the American people, the alternative we need to draw the line.
-- Edward Renner, Largo
What if George W. Bush had stood opposite Al Gore in the last 2000 presidential debate and said:
"Never mind Social Security. Never mind prescription drug coverage. Never mind budget surpluses and deficits. If I'm elected president, I'm going to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein is a very bad man!"
Who would you have voted for?
And what if Sens. Bob Graham and Bill Nelson and Rep. Bill Young and our other area representatives vote to allow the president to use force in Iraq without having answers to any of the questions that were so important before last week: Would Americans be the only ones fighting and dying; would U.S. taxpayers be the only ones paying for the invasion; what plan is there for forming a stable Iraqi government; how long would we have to occupy Iraq if Hussein is deposed; what will this do to oil prices and our economy; etc.?
Who will you vote for next time?
-- Richard Gahn, St. Petersburg
Re: Broward official apologizes for voting mess, Sept. 20.
Let's see if I have this right: Broward County Supervisor of Elections Miriam Oliphant rejects offers of help from experienced supervisors before the election, fails in her job miserably, blames others for the problems, and then finally apologizes nine days later, as the governor "applauds her change of heart." She is then kicked upstairs, as "a figurehead," a new "lieutenant" is hired to do her job, and she keeps her salary of $122,446 per year.
How dare politicians criticize people in the business world when they sanction things like this? She's paid more than I was a few years ago as the chief financial officer of a public corporation -- and she now apparently has no job responsibilities. I would have expected to be fired if I had performed as badly as she did, not rewarded. I'm disappointed in the governor for failing to remove her, and disappointed in the Broward commission for wasting more taxpayer dollars to keep this charade going. Could it be that they were influenced, once again, by fear of the "race card" raising its ugly head?
-- Peter J. Ford, Tierra Verde
I not only rejoiced at Neal Peirce's Sept. 16 column, Look beyond winner-take-all elections, I felt somewhat vindicated. During my service on the most recent Pinellas County Charter Review Commission, I proposed that a look be taken at cumulative representation as a system of electing county commissioners. A native Chicagoan, I grew up with proportional representation as the method used for electing state representatives. It worked well in the state of Illinois for many years and I, as a 32-year Floridian, was surprised to learn that cumulative voting had been discarded in Illinois in 1980.
When I made a detailed presentation explaining proportional representation to the Review Commission, it was scoffed at and rejected out-of-hand. Many of my fellow commissioners seemed to completely fail to understand how the system works. Since then, after writing and speaking in advocacy of proportional representation, the only local voice that joined me was that of the St. Petersburg Times' distinguished editorialist Martin Dyckman.
Perhaps Neal Peirce's piece will inspire others to take a serious look at proportional representation by cumulative voting as fairer means of electing our state's decisionmakers.
-- Perkins T. Shelton, St. Petersburg
Re: Pre-recorded political messages.
In the weeks before the primary election, I was the recipient of dozens of pre-recorded messages from political candidates. It was annoying when I was at home to answer these calls, and doubly annoying when I returned home from errands to find my answering machine full of these political messages. To me, these recordings are as annoying as telemarketing pitches. Friends of mine are in agreement.
Rather than encouraging me to vote for the candidate, these messages have a negative affect on me. Some speaker's messages are inaudible, most messages really tell me nothing about the candidate other than to vote for him/her. If the candidates are so eager to reach me and others, surely they or their supporters could make a live telephone call. This would have a more positive affect and would allow the voter to make some inquiries.
I hope that the candidates who will be on the ballot in November read this and give serious thought to whether or not they want to continue to be a source of annoyance to the voters.
-- Dorothyann Reilly, Port Richey
We invite readers to write to us. 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. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.