The other evening I stumbled on a C-SPAN broadcast of what I believe was a meeting of the House Armed Forces Committee. The topic was the request for $87-billion for Iraq, of which $20-billion was for Iraqi rebuilding. I listened, enthralled, for three hours. In attendance were Paul Bremer, U.S. civil administrator in Iraq; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; and Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf. Democrats and Republicans alike voiced their approval for the expenditure.
One congressman from a poor district in Texas said that many of his constituents needed the same improvements in water and sanitation, but he understood the priority and would fight for the appropriation. There were intelligent questions and discussion. Several committee members of both parties had returned recently from Iraq and complimented Bremer on the progress being made in improving infrastructure and in setting up self-government in towns as well as nationally.
On the down side were comments from members of Congress that it was unfortunate that the true story as they saw it during their visit was not being told by the media. Bremer pointed out that 8,000 separate projects had been completed in the last three months but with little or no coverage. Some 85 percent of the towns now had town councils. Bremer said someone would be appointed to work with reporters to try to get the broad picture to the American public.
If the war is going as well as it was portrayed in the committee meeting, voters need to know this. It is a sad commentary on our free press if the media have to be pushed to give full coverage to an important subject like this.
Testimony before the committee said that we have a legal as well as moral responsibility to at least restore Iraq to its prewar level. Most reasonable people, I believe, would agree with this. It is obvious anyway that we cannot pull our troops out until some rebuilding is done, and $20-billion is not all that much these days.
Some of our prominent politicians (not on the House committee) are bickering about details and delaying action while people are dying. They should have asked those questions before they voted for the war. Once the shooting starts, it is a little late.
-- W.R. Eames, Sun City Center
More empire-building?
Re: Company's ties to Bush decried, Oct. 1.
We've been reading about Halliburton, Brown and Root, Carlyle Group and Bechtel. Now a new firm with Bush ties has been formed to take advantage of the war. Is the United States doing nation-building or Bush empire-building? What happened to the Iraqi people running their own country? Are we still supposed to believe we didn't go into Iraq for the oil? We can't imagine what we would feel like if we had a child serving in Iraq.
-- Darlene and Peter St. Martin, Largo
This is a bigger story
Re: Company's ties to Bush decried.
This is a very important article that perhaps should have been on the front page. It doesn't make sense not to give it the credence it deserves, especially in light of the recent Halliburton expose by 60 Minutes, which substantiates your article.
Your report states: "A company that was created to help clients take advantage of business opportunities in Iraq is made up of businessmen associated with President Bush, his family and administration."
Perhaps you should elucidate as to when this company was created and who else was involved with the president in this lucrative idea of taking advantage of the spoils of war?
With articles such as this, it becomes harder and harder to believe that this war was nothing more than a business opportunity, since the Bush administration's scare tactics of promoting a war (a pre-emptive strike) because of weapons of mass destruction won't hold up.
Recognizing Saddam Hussein was not a good or noble man, as is the case with most dictators, we had him in check. He wasn't going anywhere, as we were constantly flying over and patrolling his country.
The biggest question is: Could we have better spent the money that is earmarked for Iraq in our own country, for things such as medical coverage or making sure that no American has to live in poverty?
You have just brushed the surface on a larger story than you realize!
-- Nelson M. Powell III, Tampa
Novak should be fired
While journalists may be protected from prosecution, Robert Novak, the conservative columnist who publicly outed a CIA agent in July, violated journalistic standards requiring such a breach of national security to occur only if the information is integral to an important story. In so doing, he helped the Bush administration smear Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his family, intimidating others from speaking the truth.
What Novak did is a threat to national security without good cause. Moreover, he cooperated fully with the Bush administration's efforts to intimidate those who speak out about the administration's deceptions. It would be appropriate for the Chicago Sun-Times and CNN to fire Novak for choosing a politically motivated smear over national security. The New York Post should stop syndicating Novak's column. There are other op-ed columnists who can supply the nation's newspapers with varying points of view, but do not stoop to such low and treacherous methods while serving as journalists in our beloved country.
-- Carol A. Barker, Tampa
Hold columnist accountable
I listened to a CNN reporter commenting about Robert Novak's report that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. The reporter said he was sure that Novak would not reveal his source. He also cited the "public's right to know," the ethical code of all reporters. That code does not apply here. And when it is discovered which "senior administration source" revealed that information, Bob Novak should be held accountable also.
Sorry, but I did not need to know what Mrs. Wilson did for a living. What Novak should have reported was that there was a serious breach in the administration and that someone feloniously reported information regarding a CIA operative. That was the story. His decision to name her was as felonious as the passing of the information to him. Did any of the other journalists who received the same information print her name? And if they didn't, why didn't they? Probably because they felt it wasn't something the public had a right to know or even care about. It was not newsworthy at that time.
-- Patricia E. Jaycox, Holiday
The plight of the military family
I am the mother of an active duty Marine. My other son is leaving next summer for the Marines as well. My son spent a very long time in the Middle East and was part of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
I have been reading a lot of complaints regarding the length of stay of our military in Iraq. While we all worry and miss our sons and daughters, let's not forget that others served for years in the World Wars and that the families had no contact at all during the war. My brother was in Vietnam and we did not hear for months even when he was wounded and in intensive care. We were told that he was alive by the Red Cross when we called daily.
While we may not hear a lot from our military, we should remember to thank the media for keeping us informed of daily events there and be thankful for the technology we have. We all miss our family members but let's be thankful for what we do hear. God Bless our military and their families.
-- Kathy Dreyer, member of Mothers of Marines Inc., Safety Harbor
Troops deserve more
Re: Escaping harm, not blame.
I read with amazement in the Sept. 27 St. Petersburg Times that our soldiers returning from Iraq for R&R are being dropped in Baltimore and then have to pay for their way home. We are spending billions in Iraq and yet we do not have the resources to get the troops home to their families? Something is very wrong with this picture.
We show all this compassion for people who hate us, yet we cannot take care of our own. What a shame.
-- Inge Caulfield, Gulfport
Bad intelligence
In insisting that Iraq posed a gathering, if not imminent, threat to the United States, George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that this threat and the war that followed, was based on "good intelligence." With several groups and congressional committees now questioning the CIA threat assessments on which Bush reportedly acted, perhaps it's time to define "good intelligence."
Quite simply, good intelligence is that belief or supposition that proves to be true. Bad intelligence is that belief or supposition that proves false. Bush acted on bad intelligence. No one has found a weapon of mass destruction. No one believes Iraq was a threat to Americans. Yet Bush triggered a war that has cost hundreds of American dead and wounded and between 10,000 and 20,000 Iraqi deaths - more than 2,500 since Bush declared major combat at an end some months ago. That is really "bad intelligence."
-- Ron Teunis, Weeki Wachee
Hussein's plan
I don't understand the bafflement in some circles over the spreading guerrilla warfare in Iraq. A marginal organized army faced an overwhelmingly superior force it knew it could not defeat in set battles. So it followed a preconceived plan to fight the invading force.
There were countless weapons cached in numerous locations throughout the country, waiting to be distributed to those faithful followers who had discarded their uniforms and weapons and then faded away to blend in with the general population. These reconstituted Republican Guard and Fedayeen units are now rearmed and taking a deadly toll on our forces.
Every incident, especially if an Iraqi civilian is killed, increases the resentment of the United States.
I think we have been outmaneuvered by a clever madman, that "Wile E. Coyote," Saddam Hussein. We aren't going to succeed until he is eliminated and his remains publicly displayed.
-- Robert Mann, St. Petersburg
Why not Zimbabwe?
Re: Tyranny wins again in Zimbabwe, Sept. 30.
Can somebody please explain to me why U.S., British and Coalition forces are not "liberating" the people of Zimbabwe? It seems to me that the atrocities committed by President Robert Mugabe against his people are not so different from those committed by Saddam Hussein against the Iraqi people.
Perhaps it could be something to do with that little word "oil."
-- Gillian Maden, Spring Hill
Share your opinions
Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They also can be sent by fax to (727) 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.
For e-mail users: Letters can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com E-mail messages must be text only and cannot include attachments. If you're using a word processing program to write the message, use the cut and paste functions to place it into your e-mail program. Please include your return e-mail address, as well as your name, mailing address and phone number, in the text of the message.
