Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
I am sick to death of the lies people write about our president on why the United States invaded Iraq. When are you people going to pop your heads out of the sand?
Imagine this was 1945 and you were one of the lucky ones who survived the Holocaust and not one of the millions who died in concentration camps during World War II.
A May 25 article by Hazem Saghiya in Al-Hayat claimed, "The number of those murdered by Saddam . . . ranges between a million and a million and a half . . ." The killing fields of Saddam Hussein, now exposed to the world, have shocked even the Arab world. "It is not the mass graves and Saddam Hussein's regime that are scary. What is scary is those who say, "Saddam's [regime] is ended, so let's forget about its graves.' [This is] scary mainly because in the shadow of this obliviousness, the Saddam phenomenon and its graves might recur . . . in Iraq or in any [Arab] country ruled but this culture of "let's forget' . . .," writes Saghiya in the same column.
Liberals are so intent upon destroying President Bush that they have completely dismissed the danger that Iraq posed to the United States. Iraq was a supporter of Islamic terrorism and developed weapons that would have been used by terrorists against the free world.
The successful war on Iraq has also served as a clear warning to other Islamic nations who continuously support and supply Islamic terrorists - including al-Qaida - such as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Libya.
President Bush said this would be a long and tough war against worldwide terrorist organizations. We have done well in this war in the two years since 9/11. We do not have the alternative to give up and run. They will interpret any sign of weakness in facing our enemy as an opportunity to move in for the kill.
I thank God every day that we have a president who is willing to stand up for his beliefs and be willing to protect all Americans from the evil in our world. To all the others who criticize our president, I say, "Get your heads out of the sand!"
I am 62 years-old, a lifelong Democrat and fortunate to have been born in the United States of America. Yet as I look at my country today, I stand amazed at how certain people cannot bring themselves to understand why there exists such hostility to this president's policies and actions.
Americans have somehow become knee-jerk in their reaction to flag-waving and those politicians who wrap themselves in the flag to evade criticism. There seems to be an unwillingness to challenge where this president's policies are leading us, in fact little tolerance for those who question the direction where the country is being led. This is in spite of obvious errors that have spread American military forces thin around the world, antagonized allies and sold off this country to the highest bidders.
As Americans, we must make our leaders accountable. We can't allow them to hide behind soldiers who followed orders and did their duty, by challenging others who wondered why the soldiers were given those orders in the first place. Americans need to take heed of what's happening, or else the country they have come to love will not be the country they pass on to their children.
Re: Here's to an empire with health care, by Molly Ivins, and Journalism 101 for a new campaign, by Paul Krugman, Dec. 27.
Good grief! Ivins or Krugman one at a time is bad enough - enough to ruin an otherwise good day. But both on the same day and on the same page of the Times is more than a body can abide!
Molly Ivins is her usual obnoxious, cynical rambling self and can be excused because she's in a rut - just like Diane Roberts - and can't help herself. (Ivins and Roberts would make good bookends because they are so heavily overloaded with contempt for President Bush and are constantly taking potshots at the administration with their tiresome, silly cliches and clever-cute metaphors).
But Krugman! I can't imagine anything more sophomoric than his remarks about teaching Journalism 101. What a joke! Picture professor Krugman addressing his Journalism 101 class on the first day:
"Now, students, don't start your articles with cutting remarks about my old pal Al Gore and his new-found buddy Howard Dean. Don't discuss their wearing apparel or how Al Gore kept changing his image during the 2000 campaign and after he lost (or rather had the election stolen from him). Please don't mention how he is hogging the spotlight so as to set himself up for 2008. And for heaven's sake, don't mention Dean's record as governor of Vermont. For example, he held secret energy meetings, but then we don't want anyone to really know anything about him. And this above all, to thine own self be true: Show lots of bias and remember pig-headed opinions are sacred, and I do mean sacred! Do as I do, not as I say. Or is it do as I say and not as I do - or what? Oh, never mind. There's the bell. You all be good journalists as you work on tomorrow's assignment: How to bash the current administration so as to draw attention away from the flaws in candidate Dean. Have a nice day, you hear! Class dismissed."
Our future well-being won't be much if voter decisions are based on spin and not fact.
Thanks for printing Paul Krugman's Journalism 101 for a new campaign, which expresses a concern of mine: journalistic spin similar to marketing a political/business bias.
It's difficult enough finding time to read the newspaper, and when I do, I like the reward of learning truth without spin. Life can be messy enough itself, so let us have eyewitness reporting on issues of substance.
Journalistic spin can lead to reader numbness. That can divert attention from critical to superficial issues which don't give the measure of a candidate. Being a leader is difficult enough, dealing with scores of worthy issues that challenge decisionmaking in opposing directions. The complication of spin gets in the way of America's future with the confusion ultimately it creates.
What motivates a candidate to reach a decision is the guide he or she will use in unpredictable times as a leader. I don't want a spin or diversion on that. As voters we need to understand the character of our candidates and accept the fact they are prone to repairable blunders like the majority of us.
Every time I read a person using the word "liberal" on the opinion pages, it makes me cringe. It is popular in some circles to smash public servants by using the liberal label. The one thing that these individuals forgot or did not learn is that the American experiment is by definition a liberal idea.
The current faction of the Republican Party is not by definition conservative. There is another name for their current ideology, as history reminds us, and it is not a good ideology. Public servants should be labeled by the content of their character and service to "We the people of the United States of America." Using labels as sound bites to scare the voters is a coward's way of campaigning.
Kudos to the St. Petersburg Times for Papers tell of Rumsfeld's '84 trip (Dec. 23), the recent piece on the Reagan/Rumsfeld connection. The United States supplied most of the chemical, biological and standard weaponry that Saddam Hussein used to murder his own people and conveniently looked the other way when he did so. I still have in my mind the photo of Rumsfeld from that time, shaking hands with Hussein. It made me sick then and it makes me sick now.
Saddam Hussein has always been a brutal dictator, but in 1984 he was our dictator.
Upon leaving office, President Dwight Eisenhower warned of the evils of the "military-industrial complex" taking over the country and the government. His warning obviously has gone unheeded, for that is exactly what we have today as we merrily spend many times more for the military than we do for education. We and our children's children will be paying the piper "down the road."
Re: When all diplomats live in fortresses, does it mean the terrorists have won? by Thomas L. Friedman, Dec. 23.
Diplomats and consular officials are living not as true representatives of our country where they can associate freely with the peoples of the country in which they are serving. As aptly described in Friedman's column, they are holed up in safe havens as processors of papers and reports based on much hearsay and local newspaper items.
Reducing our physical presence in other countries should be the primary goal of our State Department and the present administration in Washington. Lessening the number of people in hazardous places will not affect our ability to deal effectively with our counterpart diplomats. Yes, we can still continue to spend billions to upgrade and build new edifices, but by eliminating many of our smaller posts and concentrating on regionalizing our efforts, we can effect huge savings.
Today's world of communication technology sets the stage for reducing our need to actually be located in the foreign countries, especially in the diplomatic arena. The consular requirements present a somewhat different picture because of the issuance of visas, passports and other services, but a new look at what we now require for entrance into this country should be carefully explored. The last thing we want is for the wrong people to come here, but what can prevent it from happening? Efforts are being made to have better control of where visitors are traveling, etc., but this is a major undertaking.
Let's look carefully at what we must have for someone to visit this country and what other countries require for us to visit them. Are we that much different? I suggest that the Department of Homeland Security get in touch with the State Department and talk it over.
It takes a lot to bring tears to my old eyes, but the Don Addis battlefield cartoon in your Dec. 25 edition did just that. Thanks.
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.