Re: America's solidly gung-ho on war in Iraq, Dec. 23.
Robert Kagan, in his column, wrote: "But Dean undid all his advisers' efforts when he insisted that "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer.' A landslide's worth of Americans really don't agree."
I am also one who has said that the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer. If the United States is safer, why are we now on a high alert? Hussein was never the threat to America the administration led the country to believe. There were no weapons of mass destruction or the ability to deliver them to our shores.
The real threat to America is the Islamic insurgents and terrorists throughout the world, as well as the Islamic extremists covertly existing within our borders. The other threat to America lies within our Congress and administration when they fail to close the borders and stop the influx of foreigners during this period of high alert. Evidently they don't remember the terrorists who freely roamed our country before they attacked on 9/11.
-- C.J. Bjornberg, Clearwater
Hype can bring on the cheers
Re: America's solidly gung-ho on war in Iraq.
Robert Kagan writes that Howard Dean undid all his advisers' efforts when he insisted that "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." He goes on to say that "a landslide's worth of Americans really don't agree."
But there might be a landslide that does agree, including those folks in Washington. Why else the recent orange alert? I think that Kagan should know by now that a great many Americans will cheer for anything that's hyped enough.
-- Dan Kupchick, Clearwater
Is this a foreign policy we want?
Re: A gift for conservatives, letter, Dec. 23.
A letter in the Times reports a reader's joy at the appearance of David Brooks' ridiculous column last week (In Dean's world, evil is a strategy). This same reader must be feel like Santa Claus himself slid down the chimney to deliver the Tuesday edition, as his letter appears on the same page with a piece by Robert Kagan. How can you possibly believe Kagan has any shred of credibility to write a fair piece related to Iraq and warrants appearance in the Times? Kagan, a founding member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC,) has long clamored for a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Writers and readers who rush to defend the Iraq invasion are surely familiar with this organization, aren't they? If not, they should be, as most of the Bush administration is made up of former or current members, and PNAC's statements, letters and publications are now the foundation of official U.S. (and therefore every individual American's) national security strategy. In 1998, Kagan and his PNAC colleagues urged President Clinton to adopt a defense strategy that "should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power." They have also aspired for the United States to "establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the (Middle East) region." Obviously, that was a pretty misguided strategy given the facts that Iraq had no involvement in 9/11 and the last traces of a potential Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program were wiped out by 1998.
Kagan can huff and puff all he wants about the "public mood" and various poll numbers, but I have serious doubts that average Americans (even self-described conservatives) would adopt PNAC policies and aspirations for global dominance as their own.
But please don't take this writer's word for it. Look them up and decide for yourself if they are truly the policies you want representing America and representing you.
-- Anthony J. Ferraro, Tampa
Where is concern for humanity?
Re: It's bin Laden we want, letter, Dec. 20.
This letter is a perfect example of blind fanaticism with regard to political partisanship. Along with his anti-Bush rhetoric, he wrote, "Hussein was never a threat to us."
It is sad that it appears the letter writer has no concern for humanity. Perhaps the ghosts of victims past, including the children, should pay a visit to re-enact the atrocities perpetrated by Hussein.
Possibly the letter was inadvertently published because I believe it is an embarrassment, or at least should be, to the writer.
-- David W. Nolet, Clearwater
Spinning it both ways
Re: Terrorist threats.
This administration and its loyal followers have been telling us for the last six months how much safer the United States and the world are from terrorists since we invaded Iraq. In fact, with the capture of Saddam Hussein, that safety zone went up even higher.
A couple of days ago, (and with a straight face) this same administration tells us that the threat of terrorism is higher than it ever was and then raised the color code to orange to signify the greater danger to the United States. That really takes chutzpah to spin a story both ways!
-- Joseph T. Palazzo, St. Petersburg
We face more danger now
Re: Libya vows to end WMD program, Dec. 20 and Terror alert rises a notch to high, Dec. 22.
Absorbing the news of Libya's newfound cooperative attitude and the Bush administration's recent terror alert, I find an odd paradox. On one hand, the leader of a nation that has long been thought of as a brutal, uncooperative dictator with a lot of American blood on his hands is turning toward the international community and offering to open his nation's doors to inspection. This, the Bush administration hopes, if it holds true, is evidence that we are on the right track with our "war on terror."
Meanwhile, we hear Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge talking about "strategic indicators" pointing to future attacks, which are "perhaps greater now than at any point since Sept. 11."
While it's no surprise to me that powerful liars like Moammar Gadhafi would like to preserve their privilege and so will stand in line to be "checked for fleas," there are already those who claim it is a posturing move and not much more. But no matter how much lipstick the administration puts on this pig, it has to take responsibility for the fact that after two years of their retaliatory actions, according to Tom Ridge, we face more danger now than before.
We have to show leadership as citizens, learn the facts and dangers of all U.S. foreign policies, and adjust our nation's posture. Pick up the phone. Get out your pen and paper. Type that e-mail. Let's go!
-- B. Wolfe, Tampa
We still need a full investigation
Re: Terror alert rises a notch to high, Dec. 22.
Why should the the color orange concern Americans while the president and his administration continue to obstruct a thorough investigation into 9/11? While his choreographed words say one thing, these actions clearly show that George W. Bush wants to hide the truth of the full story of 9/11 at least until after the next presidential election. Is he afraid a full investigation will reveal incompetence, or worse?
All Americans should demand an immediate and thorough investigation into 9/11, and one of those Americans should be the president. Instead, Bush is showing more concern about his own ego and the 2004 election than with lives already lost and the possibility of more deaths at the hands of terrorists.
Color levels may make a good headline and may convince or scare some into believing that this administration is doing its best to protect us, but do these warnings really make any difference? Only a thorough investigation can tell us if we are really more prepared today than we were on Sept. 11, 2001.
The story of the failed ambush on L. Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, was on Page 16A of the St. Petersburg Times.
I am glad there were no casualties from this attack, but I was really shocked by the comments of the Bush spokesperson who stated that the president was not even informed about the event because someone deemed it unnecessary.
We do know from previous reports that the president does not read newspapers or view television news. Now we see that the world information that he does receive from whatever sources is diluted by unnamed "gatekeepers."
How does one make decisions and function in a vacuum?
-- Ed Murphy, Spring Hill
Following Washington's lead
Re: Iraqi council mired in cronyism, indecision, Dec. 20.
Hypocrisy seems to be a constant theme coming out of Washington today, but this article makes it clearer than ever. When I saw the word cronyism, I thought the article must be about the Bush administration. But no, it was about the new Iraqi Governing Council. "Nepotism, cronyism, self-dealing and outright corruption" - sure sounds like a normal day in the Bush White House to me!
So where do you think the Iraqi council is learning how to govern? They're learning from the masters in Washington. Secret deals behind closed doors (Dick Cheney's meetings with energy big shots), constant burying of the facts and lying to the public, gigantic political contributions in exchange for huge favors to large corporations (oil, pharmaceutical, developers, logging, etc.).
The Bush White House is one big "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" operation. Just look at Halliburton and its inside connection to Cheney! So how can we expect Iraq not to practice the same type of favoritism and cronyism? They're learning from the best teachers in the world!
-- Chris Willard, Safety Harbor
The public didn't get the truth
Re: The capture of Saddam Hussein.
We were not sold this invasion of Iraq as a liberation effort. We were not sold this invasion because Hussein supported al-Qaida. We were not even sold this invasion because Hussein was a bad man. President Bush told this country and the rest of the world that invading Iraq was necessary because Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which he refused to acknowledge or destroy. Period.
How refreshing it would be if our president and his supporters had the sand to admit that we partook in a little duck soup to demonstrate to al-Qaida that the United States is not afraid to deploy its formidable military. Of course, one questions whether Britain, Spain and the other coalition nations would have signed on had Bush conceded at the outset that the invasion of Iraq was little more than strategic muscle flexing.
Whether that rationale is legitimate is not the issue. It is sometimes necessary for targets to demonstrate their resolve. The issue is that the American people were deprived of the opportunity to make an informed decision. Conservatives will have to forgive me for finding this more troubling than lying under oath about extramarital sex.
Perhaps the Bush administration believed that Americans would not have been able to "handle the truth" about why an invasion of Iraq was so exigent. It would have been nice to have been given the chance.
-- Andrew L Patten, 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.
