Andrew Sullivan's article misses the point. His pathetic attempt to spread blame for the crisis in Iraq to the United Nations and Bill Clinton only reveals his misgivings about the eventual outcome. No doubt if we had already "liberated" Baghdad, he would be hailing the administration in Washington as heroes and giving them credit for their foresight.
The important issue which we as Americans must devote our energy to is not whom to blame, but rather understanding how this invasion is perceived by the rest of the world and, more important, by the nations of the Middle East. The outcome is only partially dependent on the American viewpoint. If this conflict enrages the Muslim community and alienates our allies, we are going to be standing alone with worldwide empathy for Sept. 11 evaporated into the "fog of war." It would appear from some accounts that this may have already occurred.
How do we measure success? If we gain control of Iraq but unite the Muslim nations against us, will we have won? Are Americans prepared for a protracted engagement that may draw other nations into the conflict? Will this war make Americans safer if it increases terrorist aggression? Were any of these questions seriously discussed by our leaders or was the message of "liberation" merely patriotic lip service disguising an agenda of provocation?
With a president who so casually tosses around phrases like "axis of evil," and "crusade," I have my doubts as to whether there is any real debate taking place in Washington or any true understanding of the Muslim mind.
-- Buchanan Hill, St. Petersburg
The real story
Re: Whose war is it?
Imagine my surprise to see The St. Petersburg Times print an article explaining the real and complete story about why we are in Iraq at this particular point in time. Just do your readers a favor next time and print it on the front page.
Andrew Sullivan tells it like it is and a lot of the American media don't want their audience to know the history behind this campaign against Iraq and why the United States is doing what it has to do. I'm tired of biased press reporting and the uninformed public's negativity toward President Bush and this administration.
As Sullivan points out, this war belongs to a lot of people, chiefly the United Nations, as well as former President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair. Because of their actions (or inactions?) it has become George W. Bush's war. I, for one, am happy he's our commander in chief and knows what has to be done. This war did not begin on March 19, 2003 but on Sept. 11, 2001.
-- Sandra L. Ernst, St. Petersburg
Don't deflect the blame
I was both amused and disturbed by Andrew Sullivan's article Whose war is it?. Like a good conservative, Sullivan blames the war on the United Nations and Bill Clinton. I remind readers who might be convinced by Sullivan's jaded view of recent history, that both the United Nations and President Clinton did everything in their power to avoid war.
If you are looking for someone to blame, look to the person who abandoned peace negotiations, ignored most of our closest allies and signed the orders that sent dozens of Americans and thousands of Iraqis to horrible deaths.
At the end of the article, Sullivan speculates on how history will view President Bush. I can only hope Bush does something about the pitiful American economy, prescription drug prices, the pressing needs of states to fund education and the rising health needs of the elderly before the history book closes on him.
Someday, I hope that Americans will value peace as much as, or more than, war. I dream that someday Americans would rather spend $78-billion taking care of the enormous problems we have in America, not in the deserts of the Middle East. Does anyone realize how many medications that $78-billion would buy for needy children and the elderly? How many acres of sensitive land could be preserved for wildlife and for our grandchildren? Does anyone care?
-- Michael Adams, Hudson
It all falls together
Re: Whose war is it?
The article by Andrew Sullivan is the most enlightening I have seen regarding the Middle East since Gulf War I. I vividly remember the reaction of many when the first President Bush didn't go on to Baghdad because of the U.N. dictate that he free Kuwait only. The way Sullivan ties in the many situations that have since developed in the Middle East was startling to me in that it all falls together. Based on this article the days of the United Nations appear to be numbered.
-- John P. Thompson Sr., Holiday
The way dissent works
Re: Freedom means nothing without dissent, March 30.
Philip Gailey misses the point of political dissent and makes a common mistake in urging tolerance of unpopular ideas. The popularity of an idea is unrelated to whether it is right or wrong. In fact, the advances in social justice that have come from dissent have always resulted precisely because the dissent was not tolerated.
The purpose of dissent is to focus an unjust public policy so sharply in the public consciousness that the policy can no longer be acceptable, even if it's "popular."
Gailey states, "It [freedom] means nothing if dissenting opinions are not tolerated. . . . Many of us have trouble tolerating their [anti-war protesters] rage and contempt, but tolerate it we must."
In fact, the opposite is true: Dissent must be intolerable for it to be effective. Dissent against racial injustice 50 years ago was not "tolerated," nor was dissent over the war in Vietnam. Mohandas Gandhi and the Rev. Martin Luther King are not heroes because their dissent was "tolerated."
So although Gailey means well, he and other "defenders" of the freedom to dissent shouldn't try to help. The last thing we dissenters need is "tolerance." We don't want acceptance; we want change.
-- Robert Clark, Tampa
Beyond tolerance
Although the sign "Bush is Hitler," disgusts you, you say "tolerate it we must." I say if the sign bearer was not arrested or physically abused merely for expressing his sentiment, then he was tolerated.
But to further its self-interest, the Times doesn't want tolerance; it wants supine acceptance. This is couched in its desire for harmony and freedom.
As for harmony, let us remember who initiated this ruckus. As for freedom, both sides have an equal right to be offensive.
-- Francis J. Sullivan, St. Petersburg
A touch of jingoism
Re: Freedom means nothing without dissent.
Philip Gailey's column was reasoned and to the point. Why did he have to end it with his touch of American jingoism - "this is the United States of America, the freest nation on this earth."
Being a guest in the United States and a citizen of Canada, I and others from countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Australia, just to name a few, find that we live in countries not quite as free as the United States. I have never felt this to be the case, but then again, I could be wrong.
The editorial section of your paper is my favorite. Keep it up. I don't have to agree.
-- Allistar Curwin, St. Petersburg
Compassion is missing
How disheartening it was to see that three of the first four letters to the editor published last Sunday were ignorant, selfish and callous pieces of tired rhetoric. Whether addressing the plight of a hardworking family of Mexican immigrants or the death of Iraqis, the three letter writers totally lack compassion or understanding of anyone and anything outside of their narrow sphere of existence.
The tone of these letters reflects the greater problematic trend in this country toward self-absorption and arrogance. Most Americans - including, I'm sure, these writers - are truly blessed; we neither have a war transpiring in our own backyard, nor do we need to engage in back-breaking manual labor to make less than minimum wage. With so many advantages, it's shameful that these letter writers would be so obdurate as to ignore the plight of the individual and make false blanket statements about the role that these "outsiders" play in "our" society.
Let's remember the less fortunate people who produce or are products of our pretentious lifestyle, and show a little empathy for the Romo and Salbi families of the world.
-- Catherine Wilkins, St. Petersburg
Weight of the dome
Re: Dome disenchantment, March 30.
I read with interest (pun intended) that the Tropicana Field eyesore should be paid off in the year 2025. The good Lord willing, I will be 76 years old by then; the Rays may still be in existence. If they are, my bet would be that the Trop would not be standing since like other greedy major-league teams, the Rays would have demanded a newer playpen. The only entities to win with publicly financed stadiums are the teams.
As for the benefits to the public, take a look at the local apathy meter for Major League Baseball, but remember who still holds the long-term financial burdens.
-- Kenn Sidorewich, Oldsmar
[Last modified April 16, 2003, 14:21:01]
Perspective
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
