I would like to address the highly controversial subject of taking pictures of our war dead and/or exhibiting them in newspapers and television.
Taking pictures of anything historical is part of our heritage and the history of our country. Without the pictures of past wars, events of those wars, historical sites and meetings, we leave only part of history to our children and those to follow. Pictures give the real picture and have been part of our history for centuries and will continue to be so. Paintings and artwork of all kinds have given us a connection with the past.
As for taking pictures of our war dead in flag draped coffins and projecting them on the TV screen and in the newspapers for publicity and/or political gain, that is just plain sick. This is not honoring them. We honor them by giving appropriate attention when and where it's appropriate, and respecting the privacy of relatives. These pictures will be part of the legacy they leave us, which will honor them forever.
Every time I hear of a soldier being killed or captured I say a prayer, and though the world does not know I am doing this, I think the relatives know some of us are there with them.
Yes, in times to come, these pictures will be valuable for history's sake. But right now, during the height of turmoil, showing pictures of our war dead does nothing to help the relatives or the nation, only the enemy.
-- Lynn (Marilyn) Hogeland, Spring Hill
Photos make war real
The April 23 front page gave me shivers. The photograph of 20 heroes making their final journey home filled my mind with so many memories. As a nurse who served in Vietnam, it was photos like this that made the war real to me back then and were instrumental in my going there to help.
We need to see these images. Numbers don't really hit home the way this type of photograph does. The government does not have the right to deny us seeing what these heroes' journey into war has culminated with: the trip home.
The government allows us to see and cry over images of them leaving our country for war. Why are we not allowed to see their journey home?
I saw the level of respect with which these heroes are treated. But I saw so much more - the reality of the ultimate sacrifice and the number of men and women who have made it, and will continue to make it. This was but one cargo plane flying home, one of many that have already come and will continue to come.
It's more than a year since the war in Iraq started. In that time, for me, fear of war has become overwhelming sadness, and that photograph sends it home to me.
To the families of these heroes, I send my deepest sympathies and gratitude that your family member fought terrorism for me and our country.
-- Susan Bergman, New Port Richey
Other deaths to focus on
Okay. So the media want to spotlight war casualties on a weekly basis on front pages across America. Fine! Let;s do it. While you're at it, let's give equal attention to weekly fatalities on our nation's highways. Let's spotlight a weekly total of murders across America. How about a body count on drug overdoses or abortions. These weekly tragedies deserve equal time on the front page of the Times. Do you have the stomach for it?
-- John Hungerford, Palm Harbor
Bush didn't start war on terrorism
It occurs to me when I read your critical editorials that you, like many other liberal papers and news anchors, are missing the point. President Bush didn't start the war against terrorist nations or organizations. The terrorist attack on Sept. 11 was as much an act of war as Pearl Harbor and caused far more human casualties than did that tragedy.
I know you ardently espouse John Kerry's candidacy, and he might win. However, his months of service in Vietnam and flimsy excuse for seeking a change to safer areas hardly qualify him as a military strategist who single-handedly will change the course of the war. For all his criticism of Bush, Kerry would still have to rely on the same generals who now direct the war's course. For all his bluster, he has no coherent plan. His suggestion that he could get the cut-and-run United Nations to help is ridiculous.
-- Joseph Groesbeck, Clearwater
Dick Cheney's forgotten wisdom
Asked why the United States should not invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, the U.S. secretary of Defense replied: "Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there. . . . How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? . . . I think to have American military forces engaged in a civil war inside Iraq would fit the definition of quagmire, and we have absolutely no desire to get bogged down in that fashion."
The secretary of Defense in question was Dick Cheney, speaking in 1991 as he explained the first Bush administration's decision to end the Gulf War after Kuwait was freed.
What happened to Cheney's common sense during the decade between the above, prescient comments, and the fulfillment of Cheney's prophecy today?
-- Mary W. Matthews, St. Petersburg
Let them act like real leaders
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney with be testifying this week to the 9/11 committee. They will be in closed session, unsworn and together. The perception of this is that they can coordinate their answers and not create any acrimony. Some think Cheney can help Bush with his answers so he will seem informed. Maybe Bush can help Cheney with his answers. Regardless, you would think that the truth is the truth and that it will prevail.
People who reach these positions in life should be able to stand on their own two feet and not have to lean on each other in testifying. If you guys are real leaders as purported, let's show the American people and the world that you can go this alone.
-- Larry Dunn, Orange Park
We are kept in the dark
The commander in chief and his No. 2, who managed to turn a fight against terrorists into the costly, bloody mess in Iraq, are to appear this week before the 9/11 investigative commission. But, mind you, not under oath, despite their 31/2-year record of deception, and, naturally, not in public.
There was never a certainty that this pair was actually elected to serve us, but once dubiously appointed by the Supreme Court, they have demonstrated a unique capacity to hide much of their activities from the people who may have "hired" them almost four years ago.
I am still troubled by the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) of Aug. 6, 2001 - more than a month before Sept. 11 - in which Bush was alerted to increasing indications that terrorists were determined to strike the U.S. mainland. I can't imagine any portion of the PDB worth classifying; the proof is in the reading, now that the administration has been pressured to share the contents with the public.
As I understand it, the president actually asked for the briefing on terrorist threats to the United States. The briefing presumably was read but prompted nary a question from the president - though most of us could have posed dozens of questions for the intelligence agencies. Bush apparently just scanned it without comment.
But had the document been public at the time, one could imagine that someone at some level of the federal bureaucracy, or perhaps just an ordinary citizen, might have dug a little deeper, might have posed some pertinent questions, might have sounded an alarm about Saudis suspiciously learning to fly jet aircraft or meeting and traveling the United States (which facts we later learned were known to FBI agents), even might have upset the scheming that led to the catastrophe of 9/11.
Isn't it entirely possible that a public spotlight on the pre-9/11 actions of the hijackers might have prevented the attacks because the nation would have been more alert? We know that keeping everything hush-hush, as the Bush people did, enabled the terrorists to strike with little difficulty.
Had we, the people, known, thousands of innocent lives might have been spared on Sept. 11, 2001. Instead, we were kept in the dark - just as we will be this week when Bush and Cheney appear before the commission.
Why aren't we entitled to an accounting from the ones who hold office to defend and serve us?
-- Donald W. Rosselet, Dunnellon
Pat Tillman answered the call to serve
Re: Pat Tillman.
Even though I, admittedly, am no football fan, few stories have touched me as much as the recent death of Pat Tillman. In May, 2002 Tillman passed on a three year, $3.6-million contract to play football. Instead, Tillman chose to join the Army Rangers and serve behind enemy lines in Afghanistan. Instead of receiving the adoration of football fans in a giant stadium, Tillman chose to seek justice for his nation and its 3,000 fallen victims. Instead of receiving $3.6-million to play football, Tillman chose to earn $18,000 a year for work rarely taken today by those potentially worth millions of dollars.
There was a time when Tillman's sacrifice would be noteworthy not as an exception to the rule but as a continuation of the valued rule of service. In a prior era, superstars such as Ted Williams, Jimmy Stewart, Henry Fonda, Clark Gable and so many others interrupted their careers, while in their prime, to serve their nation overseas. Today we ask little, not only of our "role model" celebrities, but also from ourselves. Today, the call to service that Tillman answered, which can be answered not only in the military, but in our churches, charities, communities, civic associations and public service, is all too often left unanswered. We are an abundant society that does well but not always good.
Pat Tillman touches me not only because he died defending our nation's right to be free, but because he answered a call few of us, myself included, do not answer in our everyday lives.
My family and I have been abundantly blessed by this nation and its cherished institutions. Those blessings of liberty and prosperity are here in no small part thanks to the contributions of millions of veterans and heroes like Pat Tillman. I, for one, will be ever mindful of the contribution of this great, late American. May God bless Pat Tillman's memory.
-- Luis Viera, Temple Terrace
To honor his memory
It is a credit to Pat Tillman's family that he was instilled with the patriotism he showed. It is evidence of his great character that he walked away from riches and glory to serve a greater cause quietly and for little pay.
I can't serve as he did. But I can do something to honor his memory. My children will learn that his sacrifice is the measure of a patriot. I will, God willing, teach them to honor our flag and to love our country. They will stand for our national anthem. They will learn to say the Pledge of Allegiance with "under God" in it.
They will learn the great costs at which their freedom comes. And our way of life must be defended by brave men like Pat Tillman.
-- David Kanich, Largo
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 through our Web site at: http://www.sptimes.com/letters/
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.
