Opinion: The president is wise to reveal little about Iraq

I continue to be amazed that some politicians, pundits and news media continue to insist that President Bush relate the information he has about Saddam Hussein to prove to them and the world that this man is dangerous and we must do something about it -- even war if need be -- before it's too late. The facts remain classified, as they should. To reveal his hand would not only endanger our sources that provide the information but also probably would lessen our effectiveness.

President Bush has proved himself to be honest and trustworthy. As all will agree, he has selected the best advisers possible. They are the experts, not us. At some point, we need to let this president do his job without constantly hounding him to "spill his guts." Ever hear of the saying, "Loose lips sink ships"? It is in all our best interests that we do not know.

Perhaps if our reputation had not been so sullied by our previous administration, the country and the world would be more trusting in this one.

I for one am proud of President Bush, and although no one wants a war, I trust in his advisers and him to make that decision if it comes to it -- without my knowing every detail that may bring him to that choice.
-- Connie S. McNeilly, Crystal River

Too many questions are unanswered

I am a low-income retiree in St. Petersburg. Many of my peers and I are filled with anxiety about the cry for war. We fear the threat of war far more than we fear the "possible" threats described by President Bush -- the "might happens," the "could happens." We don't understand his obsession with Iraq. There are many other threats in the world.

We don't understand why a danger from Iraq is imminent. What are the grounds for attack? Why is there so much disagreement about "material breach"? What is the primary reason? What is the primary goal? Is it to liberate Iraqis? Is it to protect U.S. citizens? Is it because of past transgressions by Saddam Hussein? Is it to run him out and occupy Iraq or to disarm him? Where is the evidence that Hussein had anything to do with 9/11? If we are the superpower of the world, why can't our leaders figure out a way to settle our differences with a country the size of California without killing innocent people?

We listened carefully to the State of the Union address for answers and found none. What we are hearing is obsession with dominance, fear-mongering and scare tactics.

Please, stop the rush to war. There are too many unanswered questions. The world has changed. It should no longer be necessary to try to dominate through the use of force. We are smarter and more civilized than that. Let the inspections work. Listen to Sen. Ted Kennedy and the United Nations. Win without war.
-- Suzanne LaFrance, St. Petersburg

Risks of inaction are too great

There have been many letters recently regarding the impact of war with Iraq. I have read, with much interest, the different sides of the argument. It seems to me that the proper analysis of this problem lies in the balancing-of-risks approach. I think both sides would agree that there is considerable risk in going to war. There will be many casualties of both Iraqis and of coalition forces. Furthermore, there will be resentment toward America in the Arab world by many Muslim fundamentalists. There seems to be a growing fear that these fundamentalists will overcome their governments and wreak havoc on the world.

But what will happen in the event we do not remove Saddam Hussein from power? I believe it is safe to say that this would embolden him to even more aggressive and hostile acts. Moreover, tyrants in other countries will see that there is no penalty for noncompliance with U.N. resolutions; no penalty for nuclear proliferation; no penalty for the acquisition of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. Renegade governments, such as Iraq's, would be safe havens for terrorists where they would receive support and comfort.

The existing core of Muslim fundamentalists that embrace terrorism would not disappear. In fact, they would envision this lack of will to remove Hussein as a victory and it would provide the impetus to swell their forces. It would stir them on to even more treacherous acts. They are artful at hiding their transgressions and they would be able to return to countries such as Iraq and remain hidden from justice. Certainly, if Hussein is removed, the terrorists will not go away. However, they will find it much more difficult to conduct their heinous acts without the support of a rogue government.

We have seen this in Afghanistan. Al-Qaida had set up training facilities for terror and planned the attack on the World Trade Center with the full backing and support of the Taliban government in Afghanistan. They would not have had the facility to proceed so efficiently had the Afghan government been diligent in removing terrorists from its country. Nearly 3,000 innocent civilians lost their lives due to the fanatical terrorists.

Removing their support governments and thereby lessening the possibility of the terrorists gaining possession of weapons of mass destruction will save many lives. I believe the risks of not removing Hussein from power far exceed the risks of taking action. To paraphrase President Bush, "To trust in the restraint of Hussein and of the terrorists is not an option."
-- Frank Montagna, New Port Richey

What world does Bush live in?

I listened to the State of the Union speech. Our president has some grandiose ideas for AIDS relief and health care, but nowhere did he say how this was to be accomplished, and at the same time he's planning to reduce taxes even more. Does he ever look at the financial news, or does he only rely on his speech writers? I would like to know what world he lives in because I would like to move there.

It also looks as if our president is planning on going to war whether or not everyone is convinced this step is necessary. All avenues of investigation by the United Nations have not been exhausted yet, and I can't understand why he is rushing this enormous step. While he is so cavalierly sending our sons and daughters to war, I hope he includes his own daughters and nieces and nephews. Yeah, sure -- I bet none of the sons and daughters of the Bush family or his entire Cabinet will go.
-- Edith Wurster, St. Petersburg

It's time to trust our leaders

Re: Indicting Iraq and ... and on the home front, editorials, Jan. 30.

Everyone, including editorial writers of the St. Petersburg Times, is entitled to an opinion. But we cannot help but wonder about the credentials of those who write such statements as "Over the past week, the Bush administration has finally begun to make the detailed indictment against Iraq that should have been made before U.S. troops were mobilized in the Persian Gulf." Is that presumptuous, or what?

Whatever happened to trust? We elected our president, and he has assembled a Cabinet of highly qualified and experienced advisers. He also has the benefit of counsel from members of the U.S. Congress, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and professional directors of federal departments. Why do we not extend to the president and his advisers our trust to do what is in the best interests of the United States? Are not their qualifications deemed the best available?

It is distressing that the media, pouncing from frenzy to frenzy, pound the drums of opposition to our elected leaders. Constant insistence of the "public's right to know" sometimes is not in the best interests of our country and its citizens. Neither is constant insistence that we must see "a smoking gun" before taking action against rogue regimes that threaten peace and world well-being.

It is my hope that President Bush will follow the precedents of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy in demonstrating the courage to do what current challenges require in the interests of American security and world peace. It is my hope that today's loyal opposition will put world security and peace ahead of partisan purpose. It is my hope that our media will recognize the right and responsibility of elected officials to be leaders in protecting our freedoms.
-- F.L. Gus Cooper, Dunedin

War should be the last resort

If President Bush wants to help the economy, he need not do any more than stop warmongering. If he bothered to check the stock market, he would find that the main reason it is failing is the threat of war. Bush revealed his real intentions at the very beginning by demanding a regime change in Iraq. The attempts of this administration to seek a peaceful resolution have been shown to be insincere by the continuing rhetoric of war. He is exhibiting blatant vigilante behavior: "We're going to give him a fair trial, then we'll hang him." The rest of the world seems to see him this way. Why are so many Americans so blind to this?

If the United Nations wants to get tough in enforcing the resolutions, it has many avenues short of war. Real economic isolation can work, but not the wimpy sanctions imposed for the last decade. Iraq can be isolated if everyone is willing to let the oil stop flowing from Iraq. This could be enforced by a blockade, if need be. Yes, this would cause problems for the Iraqi people, but it is much better than being bombed back into the stone age by U.S. weapons. Outright war has to be the last resort, not the first serious consequence. Saddam Hussein is a murderous dictator, but he is currently no threat to us.
-- Ron Pehmoeller, Largo

Backing the president is best move

If the media and all the antiwar activists are serious about preventing war in Iraq, all they have to do is get behind their country and support the president.

Don't you know America's enemies watch our news, probably more than we do? You can be cheerleaders for America or Iraq. If you choose the former, it probably could be ended with negotiations.
-- Take it from a 70-year-old.
Harold Mierkey, Largo

First, protect our borders

I voted for George W. Bush. I believe that he is a good man who has a lot of enemies. However, unless and until he finds the ability and the inclination to seal our wide-open borders from illegal aliens, he should not be followed blithely into a major war.

What if some fanatic simply goes to Mexico and walks across the border with a biological weapon, chemical weapon, or even a nuclear weapon? If this should occur, President Bush might just as well resign and go into hiding. He must seal the borders regardless of his friendship with the president of Mexico. Most of these aliens are just looking for work, but we have no way of knowing if a terrorist is among them. We must demand that he put our homeland into a safe and secure status before tramping off to yet another foreign war, the real reasons for which we have yet to learn.
-- Richard Driscoll, Clearwater

France has the right idea

I have this to say about the French refusal to indulge His Petulance (George Bush) in his apparent eagerness to attack Iraq:

Vive la France!
-- Alexa Herrington, Tampa

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. 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