Opinion: Graham is right to vote against Bush's resolution

Shortly after the 9/11 attack, he stated that we would have Osama bin Laden within 30 days. At the time I found that remark to be a little cavalier in light of the facts and found myself questioning his judgment and intent. His making such a bold statement, especially as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, lowered my opinion of him dramatically.

In spite of this, I am very proud of Sen. Graham for voting against the resolution to authorize President Bush to use military force in Iraq. While I still question his statement on Osama bin Laden, I could not agree more with his assessment that war against Iraq would have terrible consequences. While I have many other concerns with President Bush's logic in his rush to war with Saddam Hussein, it's certainly not hard for me to imagine that an unprovoked military attack on Iraq will galvanize terrorists around the globe to act against the United States.
-- Shay Routh, St. Petersburg

Resolution not representative

President Bush needs to understand that this war powers resolution does not represent the will of the American people. The U.N. Security Council and our foreign allies need to understand this as well.

This is a puppet administration that was put into power by the worst decision the judicial branch of our government has ever made. Unfortunately Bush's fawning handmaidens in Congress made up the majority in favor of this resolution. Now that the judicial and legislative branches of our government are clearly a part of the executive branch, we no longer have a system of checks and balances.

I am very proud of the representatives and senators who voted against this nefarious resolution. History will remember them as patriots. A patriot is someone who stands up for their country, not their administration. Bush has politicized this war just as he has exploited the evil events of Sept. 11, 2001, for his own political gain. The families of the victims of that attack should be outraged.

There is something deeply wrong within this country when the will of the people is not represented by their elected leaders. I refuse to live in fear of the terrorists, but from this day forward, I will live in great fear for the future of my children and grandchildren if they have to live with this type of representation.
-- T.L. Chamberlain, Largo

Congress must save democracy

Re: Bush gets go-ahead.

A craven majority of the members of Congress have now abandoned one of the most important responsibilities placed upon them by the Constitution, which they took an oath to uphold and defend. They have chosen to give to one man, George W. Bush, the power to plunge this nation into war, unfettered authority to "use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate."

The qualification, "in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq," becomes an umbrella that he can stretch to cover any situation that he deems "appropriate." Language that "asks Bush to make periodic reports to Congress... " means nothing. Once he commits us to war there will be no turning back, and anyone daring to take exception will immediately be vilified as "unpatriotic" and "giving comfort to the enemy."

Whether or not we should go to war with Iraq has little to do with it, although certainly the case has not been made. Partisanship has nothing to do with it, although I do not view nonpartisanship with the same reverence as those who find it easier to fall into line than to fight for the party principles upon which they campaigned and sought election.

The issue here is that a majority of Congress has seen fit, without the authority to do so, to amend the Constitution, to discard their responsibilities, to turn our democracy into an oligarchy. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said it very well: "The power to declare war is the most solemn responsibility given to Congress by the Constitution. We must not delegate that responsibility [and the power] to the president in advance."

This nation can and will survive Sept. 11. Whether or not our democracy will survive George W. Bush's "war on terrorism" depends upon the members of Congress, and so far they have not shown themselves equal to the task.
-- Sydney K. Potter, Tampa

Bush should try on these shoes

Now that our illustrious leader has the go-ahead for the war he's craved since being appointed to his office in 2000, I strongly suggest he be prepared to do two things before committing our troops to battle.

First, take a good look at the pictures of casualties like Marine Lance Cpl. Antonio Sledd and then try to put himself in the shoes of that young man's parents. The second thing Mr. Bush needs to do is to determine whether he would be able to meet face-to-face with the kin of those likely to die in his Iraq adventure, look them squarely in the eye, and explain convincingly that their loved ones died for interests truly vital to the national security of the United States. Frankly, given his track record, I don't believe Mr. Bush capable of doing either of those things.
-- David L. Booker, Dade City

Not this president

War-crazed! We will never see George W. Bush nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
-- Linda Reed, Tampa

We wouldn't strike a nuclear power

Although the president is trying to convince the world that we have strong evidence that Iraq will soon have nuclear power, this argument is the very reason I believe that Iraq will not have it in the immediate future.

History shows that nations with nuclear capability, regardless of how brutal or repressive they were, have not been attacked. We did not attack the Soviet Union nor did the Soviets attack us. Instead we patiently and successfully contained the Soviet Union.

Today Pakistan is a case in point -- brutal, unstable, a trainer of terrorists and refuge to Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida terrorists who planned and executed the horror of 9/11. The situation with China is similar. And North Korea, a member of the "axis of evil," is believed to be close ot developing the bomb. No threat of a pre-emptive strike is being made against them.

If we make a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, we will be joining other powerful historical figures from Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, and in our own lifetime such leaders as Adolf Hitler and Emperor Hirohito.
-- Mary Jean Gottlieb, Brandon

It's the oil, stupid

Remember the phrase, "It's the economy, stupid?" Well, now "It's the oil, stupid!" We are going to spill American blood in Iraq for oil.

We will have an American official running the Iraqi government after the war so we can maintain the "oil fields." It's not that we are threatened by weapons of mass destruction, but we are eager to get that oil. Our Congress, in a state of fear and panic, has abandoned our Constitution to give a blank check to our president who, although he means well, has surrounded himself with hawks and greedy oil barons.

Bring your best brain when you come to the polls Nov. 5 so we can get rid of the corporate greed in both parties and perhaps restore our Constitution to its original meaning.
Barbara Nicholson, Sun City Center

Misplaced funds

If Washington can estimate the cost of postwar occupation of Iraq at $4-billion per month, what would that budget do for homeland security, Social Security and Medicare?
Joseph F. Coughlin, Safety Harbor

Don't underestimate U.S. resolve

Re: Hungarian who writes on Holocaust wins Nobel, Oct. 11.

I was struck, not so much by Nobel laureate Imre Kertesz's poignant comments about the barbarity of a European culture that produced the Holocaust (because we've seen over the past 50 years an unending series of sickening revelations), but by his comment that "There is no awareness of the Holocaust in Hungary."

During World War II, Hungary lost 600,000 Jews in the Holocaust, 87 percent of that nation's entire Jewish population. And now, a mere 57 years later, there's no awareness? What does this say about a continuing culture of anti-Semitism?

Excepting Germany and the Czech Republic, few European nations have shown much awareness, or apologetic admission of complicity, for having taken part in the Holocaust -- not Poland, where 3.5-million, 98 percent of the nation's Jews, were murdered; nor Austria (1,225,000, 98 percent of Austria's Jews); nor Romania (750,000, 98 percent of the country's Jews); nor France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy -- indeed, all the nations of Nazi-occupied Europe.

The terrorist killing of innocent Jews didn't end with World War II, as every Israeli citizen can attest. Another campaign of attempted annihilation has begun, this one directed at non-Muslims everywhere, including Americans. But the al-Qaida terrorists make the same mistake Adolf Hitler made: They badly underestimate a free people's resolve to eliminate terrorism, a resolve generated by an acute awareness of recent history and especially the events of Sept.
Joseph H. Francis, St. Petersburg

Let history teach about vaccine

History tells us that the first vaccines for smallpox were developed by inoculating healthy people with the cowpox virus (a less-severe form of the smallpox virus); it was noted back then that people who had contracted cowpox prior to being exposed to smallpox either developed an immunity to smallpox or -- at worst -- contracted a minor case of the disease. (Our word "vaccine" is derived from the Latin term for cow -- vacca -- in recognition of the treatment's origins.)

Instead of diluting our precious smallpox stores among 250-million people, would it not be more cost-effective to acquire more supplies of cowpox? Cowpox vaccine is much more readily available -- and hence, cheaper -- than smallpox vaccine to acquire.

Cowpox vaccine would be much easier to distribute on a large scale than smallpox. Our valuable smallpox vaccine could then be reserved for those who have a higher-than-average risk of coming into contact with the disease (military personnel, health care workers, law enforcement personnel, et al).

Outbreaks of smallpox date back to antiquity. We would be foolish not to pay heed to the lessons of history. Our ancestors appear to have developed a low-tech solution to combating smallpox outbreaks; surely they have something to teach us moderns . . . if we would only listen.
Elizabeth Hoff, St. Petersburg

Share your opinions

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 e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to 893-8675.

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.

Back to Opinion

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

From the Times
Opinion page