Re: We must yield some privacy to protect ourselves, letter, June 2.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry when those most disinclined to respect Americans' civil rights to begin with declare that the present state of affairs requires us to make further sacrifices in this regard.
Americans have responded to the post-9/11 atmosphere with typical alacrity, as evidenced by our willingness to submit to unending indignities at our airports and other public facilities, but don't ever interpret that as a submission to Big Brother. We take our freedoms seriously, and I believe this includes conservatives and most members of the armed forces.
Unfortunately, there are always those who would seek to use events to advance a cynical political agenda. The seductive reasoning of this brand of "leadership" presents us with a false choice between liberty or security, but there is nothing whatsoever incompatible between a serious, dedicated effort to eradicate terrorism and our constitutional rights. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
-- L.E. Brinkley, St. Petersburg
Beware more repression
Re: We must yield some privacy to protect ourselves.
A cold chill ran down my spine as I read these words: "To protect this country and its citizens, some aspects of privacy must yield to a higher purpose." Those aspects of privacy being so covertly referred to are better known as the Bill of Rights. You know, those pesky little amendments added to the Constitution to limit the government's supreme power of intrusion into our lives. And this so-called "higher purpose" is in reality nothing more than a veiled desire for an increase in repressive government control.
As I shakily ponder the disturbing implications of this all too prevalent post-9/11 mind-set, all I can muster in response would be a quotation from one of the great founders of this once-free nation, Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
So to "yield some privacy to protect ourselves" is what must be thought of as unreasonable - considering the horrendous consequences of losing our precious freedoms.
-- Daryl Henegar, U.S. Air Force, retired, Pinellas Park
Be alert to deceptions
Re: In rush to war, a "policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions," by Nicholas D. Kristof, June 2.
To the extent that Kristof's report can be verified, this perhaps represents the most egregious deception imposed on the American public since the bombing of Cambodia under the Nixon administration and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution under the Johnson administration.
We can now expect, as a matter of course, the usual denials and charges by administration officials against Kristof and the New York Times. Any attempt at a coverup, however, will result in even more dissension and damage to the agencies involved just as in the former examples. Is it possible that the French, Germans and Russians were also aware of this colossal deception? Will we learn the true circumstances only years later as in Vietnam?
In any event, since the public can no longer rely upon television news coverage regarding the "war on terrorism" we depend even more heavily on the Times to offer alternative insights into these issues.
-- Jack Sandler, Tampa
"What is truth'
Re: In rush to war, a "policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions," by Nicholas D. Kristof.
If we still harbored fond hopes that the Bush administration is capable of telling the American people the truth about anything, they should be pretty well allayed by the ongoing intelligence debacle over the nonexistent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Now that the lie has clearly been given to the president's "dog and pony show" at the United Nations and in the media over the Iraqi menace, we are left wondering, with Pontius Pilate, "What is truth?"
-- David L. Booker, Dade City
Integrity has been besmirched
First they said they wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive," but when they failed to find him, they told us that it didn't matter.
Then the same scenario was followed with Saddam Hussein. We then made a pre-emptive strike on a sovereign nation to prevent that nation from suddenly launching weapons of mass destruction on our homeland. Now it seems these weapons don't exist - maybe never existed. And apparently that doesn't matter either.
I am an American veteran of World War II, and following the Marshall Plan, my America stood tall among the world nations, "the city on a hill," beacon of justice and hope. Our very integrity has now been besmirched by those individuals who convinced this administration that we were in danger of imminent attack. These people are either incompetent, and didn't know what they were doing, or were dishonest and lied to us, causing the death of our best and bravest and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.
-- Patrick Murray, St. Petersburg
Outraged at the administration
Re: Standard operating procedure, June 4.
It lifts one's spirit to see in print what you feel strongly to be true, and Paul Krugman did that for me in this excellent piece. I have been outraged at the deception of the Bush administration for months now. Even British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell reportedly confided in each other regarding their strong reservations over the reliability of intelligence they were getting on Iraq's supposed WMDs. I'm betting Colin Powell himself, the possible next John Dean, is secretly outraged.
-- L. Atkins, Palm Harbor
Overthrowing Hussein was vital
Re: Weapons of mass destruction.
The brutal regime of Saddam Hussein has finally been overthrown, thanks to the tenacity of President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. We are slowly learning the extent of Hussein's cruelty: Thousands shot and tossed into mass graves, al-Qaida-linked terrorist cells found in Iraq, as well as the stories of those who survived Hussein's inhuman torture chambers.
In addition, Uday and Qusay, Hussein's sons, were just as ruthless as their father. Athletes who did not meet Uday's standards were beaten and tortured; Uday routinely raped women at random, including teenagers and brides at their wedding receptions; those who attempted to resist were threatened with death.
One would think that the termination of Hussein's horrific government would be considered a positive accomplishment. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Democrats are discrediting President Bush's overthrow of Saddam Hussein by asking, "Where are the weapons of mass destruction?" The very people who wanted to give the U.N. weapons inspectors more time to conduct inspections in Iraq, despite 12 arduous years, do not want to give President Bush any time to locate the weapons of mass destruction. Evidently the mass graves are not an adequate excuse to liberate the Iraqi people.
The overthrow of Saddam Hussein's murderous regime is a vital accomplishment in the war on terror. To claim otherwise is absolutely absurd.
-- Thomas W. Cunningham Jr., St. Petersburg
Focus more on missing weapons
Re: War, tax cuts: Do you believe it all?, May 26.
William Raspberry strikes again, to telling effect. Why aren't there more articles like this one on these subjects? It is true that the Bush tax cut is receiving considerable attention, but why isn't there more about Iraq and the growing realization that we were lied to about weapons of mass destruction, or that their existence at the very least was greatly exaggerated?
We went to war because of WMD and people died and are still dying as we attempt to make sense of the aftermath. Is it still considered unpatriotic to criticize? The war itself is over, and we won and are dealing with the consequences. Troops aren't dying in battle, but some are being killed now in the unpredicted confusion we created. If WMD do exist, we should demand the CIA produce the information that proves it. It is no longer under the stress and secrecy of the Cold War. The administration will hide behind the war presidency, but the war is against terrorism - not Iraq without WMD.
-- W.H. Riddell, Tampa
Not ready for democracy
Re: She went to her death in honor and shame, May 31.
This article about the young Iraqi woman who strapped grenades to her body and committed suicide in an attempt to kill U.S. soldiers was appalling on several levels, but this excerpt from the article regarding the family's reaction to her death is a perfect example of why we will never "win" in Iraq:
"Their rage comes not because of her planned attack, but because the 22-year-old woman left the house alone and without permission from her father - therefore besmirching the honor of her tribe.
" "When she left the house, she lost her innocence,' said her 71-year-old father, Salih Mutlak. "Had she returned home, I would have killed her myself and drunk her blood.' "
Can any thinking person possibly imagine that these people are ready for 21st-century democracy? Is our government really this clueless about the tribal nature of much of Iraq and the Middle East? Or is it really "about the oil"?
As our precious Constitution erodes with every implementation of the "Patriot Act," we Americans delude ourselves into thinking that we can reshape the rest of world into the image that we would like. Wake up, folks. It's not going to happen.
-- Nancy Frioud, Tarpon Springs
Sounds like a contradiction
I just heard on TV: "The war is over but troops are still being killed - and this is to be expected." Seems to be a contradiction of terms: "War over, troops expected to be killed!"
Sounds to me that the war is just beginning, and the hardest and longest part of it is still ahead of our troops in Iraq. I also would like to know just what we accomplished.
-- Dorothy E. Karkheck, Dunedin
Kindergarten cop
Re: Buttoned-lip strategy serves Bush well, May 27.
For anybody who's ever watched them in the press room under any modern president, the members of the White House Press corps do act like a bunch of kids in a kindergarten. They scream. They yell. They're disruptive. They cut each other off. And at least half of them don't know what they're talking about, or how their question relates to anything.
So when press secretary Ari Fleischer retires, I'd like to nominate (assuming he doesn't run for governor of California and wants the job) Arnold Schwarzenegger, as the new White House press secretary.
-- Bobby Thompson, Tampa
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 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.
