Re: Graham: Bush should have crushed al-Qaida, May 14.
The race for the Democratic presidential nomination hasn't even left the paddock and stepped on to the racetrack, and already our esteemed Sen. Graham has tripped over his own feet in his desperate attempt to improve his track odds.
This ill-advised move by Bob Graham puts him in the dubious company of the "blame America first" crowd and dangerously close to the Dixie Chicks, the Hollywood nuts and other assorted misinformed in the minority. Anyone who believes this trash talk is out of step with current events, even though Graham still maintains some credibility among the Democrats as a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, an oxymoron if there ever was one.
It would be a good idea if we pulled our troops and support groups out of Saudi Arabia now. This might not have been possible in time to avoid the tragedy that struck recently. However, if we refuse to accept the fact that fundamentalism is alive and well in Saudi Arabia, then it is likely that there will be more attacks on the innocent.
Sen. Graham's poorly timed words do nothing but diminish him in the eyes of the voters as he strives to find some footing to distinguish himself from the rest of the also-rans in the 2004 presidential race.
-- Sam Lasley, Clearwater
Take Graham's words seriously
Re: Graham: Bush should have crushed al-Qaida, May 14.
If Sen. Bob Graham has a problem with the way the Bush administration is running the war on terrorism, I want to hear what he has to say. More than once, when he was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I heard him interviewed on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer regarding his concerns about Sept. 11. Sen. Graham has more than enough credibility when it comes to this subject, and he didn't suddenly start talking about it just because he has declared his candidacy for president.
As noted in your article, he voted against the resolution to go to war in Iraq; it took courage to do that. Sen. Graham is not a frivolous politician, and his concerns should be taken seriously.
-- Darlene St. Martin, Largo
Graham should walk in these shoes
Re: Graham: Bush should have crushed al-Qaida.
It must be nice to be able to sit home and play Monday-morning quarterback when you don't know what you're talking about. Our cousin's husband is in Special Ops and has been in Afghanistan since last September seeking out al-Qaida members and Osama bin Laden. The terrain and climate make it very hard to maneuver, and they've had to do some of their searching on foot and horseback because nothing else allows access to the mountains and caves they need to check.
I'm sure his wife and children (ages 4 and 7) would much rather have had him home, but they understand he has a job to do. He left knowing he'd be gone at least nine months. They don't know when he will be home now.
If Bob Graham thinks they've been over there "picking off fingers and toes," maybe he also feels he can do a better job! When he was governor, he made a big point of setting up photo ops by "working with the little man." When he's willing to put on a set of fatigues and give up almost a year of his life to fight terrorism, then he'll have a right to trash what these brave men and women are doing overseas.
-- Sue Hill, Largo
Some of us do believe it
I am appalled. The St. Petersburg Times reports the Republican Party spokesman Chad Colby said Graham's charge "is baseless. The American people don't believe it." Why would I be appalled and even offended? Because I am American, and I do believe it!
Colby obviously did not ask the American people, yet he felt he could convey their thoughts as though he knew each and every one of us personally. Before the war on Iraq began, Sen. Graham said that the war would take us away from our fight against terrorism and allow groups such as al-Qaida to grow strong once again. I believe Sen. Graham knows what he is talking about. Unlike Republican Party spokesman Chad Colby, I do not pretend that all Americans agree with me. But what I offer those who do not agree is this: Seek the truth and ye shall find it.
-- G. Petrey, St. Petersburg
Who benefits from the buildup?
Re: Bush plan would rev up nuclear arms industry, May 13.
What must the rest of the world think of the United States? The Bush administration was so sure that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that the U.N. inspection teams would never find that they invaded Iraq to take over the whole country - and still did not find any. But they established the principle of a pre-emptive strike. Now they want to do the same thing with nuclear weapons. The house is discussing a buildup, totally unnecessary and contrary to previous treaties, of nuclear stockpiles, with the express idea that we can use them pre-emptively against anyone even thinking of using nuclear weapons.
Does the word hypocrisy come to mind? Our government insists that other countries give up their WMD, but we continue to build ours. We can already blow up the whole world; we are already spending our children's and grandchildren's heritage on such weapons, which we devoutly hope we will never use.
One has to ask: why the buildup? Follow the money. Who benefits from this program? Certainly those who produce such materials gain. Is it possible that they are big contributors to the Bush coterie? Is there anyone who really thinks that this buildup will add anything to our security?
-- Lucy Fuchs, Brandon
Our weapons must be tested
Re: Bush plan would rev up nuclear arms industry.
Before this subject becomes totally emotional, as it inevitably will, I would like to give the public "the rest of the story." The San Francisco Chronicle article you published gave a pretty good indication of the "what," but as in many biased diatribes by the Marxist press, it neglected to disclose the "why." As a worker in the technology end of the nuclear reactor and weapons programs for more than 25 years, I feel that I can contribute some light to the heat which is to follow.
To those who may not know, the weapons which have been produced over the past decades have a definite shelf life, which is determined by Mother Nature herself and has nothing to do with the quality of manufacture. It lies in the fact that radioactive elements, such as tritium (radio hydrogen) in the weapon, break down into other elements which markedly reduce or even prohibit use of the weapon for its intended purpose. Other nations know this as well as we do, and when we depend on instant response to their threats, we had better be able to shoot live rounds and not just blanks. It is especially important for the commander in chief to be certain that if he is called on to make such a decision he can depend on the outcome. For years we felt that we could simulate the results of firing stockpiled weapons on the giant computers which we have, but it has been so many years since a real test has been made, the data are not reliable anymore for present and future dependence. We must test real weapons and, if the results are as most scientists expect, we must refurbish the entire stockpile.
Our success at not having to use these weapons all these years has been attributable to one fact only. Any potential enemy knew for certain that we would respond, and do so with viable and devastating results. That's what deterrence is all about. At this point, it is very doubtful that we can count on our war reserves to do the job. That is probably why North Korea is giving us a toothy grin and rattling its nuclear saber violently.
The world stage has changed again in the last few years, and small nations now can carry "big guns" that effectively challenge and counter our ability to act as world policeman. Not only can we not maintain the peace, but our own safety is once more in jeopardy. I think any prudent person would say, let us do what we must to restore our ability to protect this peace-loving nation. It is axiomatic that none will attack a strongman.
-- Ken Bruckart, Palm Harbor
Stop mutilating your pets
Thank you for your editorial on dog shows and the terrible surgical procedures to which people will subject their dogs (Suspiciously fetching dogs, April 28). You mention ear-cropping and tail-docking as surgeries that are permitted, but which you feel should not be. I completely agree. To cut off parts of dogs so they will look a certain, unnatural way is a stark example of human greed, vanity and barbarism. These and other mutilations, such as declawing cats, are outlawed in England and many other countries. I would like to see these cruel and frivolous surgeries outlawed in the United States, too.
The declawing of cats is simply not practiced in most of the civilized world. Declawing is a euphemism for de-toeing, as cats' toes are amputated at the joint in declaw surgery. The procedure causes excruciating pain, which sometimes becomes chronic, resulting in cats urinating on soft surfaces rather than in the litter box.
The reason most often given for declawing cats is to protect furniture. Furniture feels no pain. Declawed cats are mutilated for life. We have laws protecting animals from cruelty, yet declawing is legal.
Is there a veterinarian out there who is ethical and compassionate enough to refuse to perform these painful mutilations? Sadly, I have yet to find one.
-- Gael R. Murphy, Tampa
Smokers aren't second-class citizens
It's really amazing that a tourist state like Florida would pass a law outlawing smoking in all restaurants. Does the state plan to put up signs on our major highways reading: "Welcome to Florida, enjoy your stay, spend your money, but don't plan on smoking in our restaurants?" If you think the economy is poor now, wait until this law is fully implemented.
I suggest the state should go one step further and ban the use of all cell phones in autos, arrest drivers using the left lane driving 40 mph in a 55 mph zone and ban serving more than three drinks in local bars to cut down on drunk drivers. This whole problem could have been avoided by letting bar and restaurant owners continue to make their own policies on smoking, as it has been. I see no problem with the way the system is set up now. Additionally, placing a sign with their policy on the restaurant's front door would allow patrons to make their own choice as to whether or not they wanted to eat or drink in any establishment.
I am sick and tired of being treated like a second-class citizen because I smoke. I believe smokers are being discriminated against and our civil rights have been taken away (as are those of the bar and restaurant owners). If more smokers would become involved, this law would never be enforced. Let's unite before it becomes too late. I will not sit back and let the state take over my life.
-- Robert Dyson, Dunedin
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 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.
