The press should be helping to win the war in Iraq
Published May 27, 2004
Re: Wishful thinking, editorial, May 26.
Wouldn't it have been great to offer words of encouragement to the president instead of condemning his every word? If you can offer a plan to stop terrorism, do it! Otherwise, call for all ideas to reach the solution.
Supporting enthusiasm toward getting the violence in Iraq stopped should be the approach of the press. Do not embolden the terrorists by suggesting they cannot be stopped.
It would be much better to report on the rebuilding successes than harp about the lack of resources to complete the process.
If you would encourage more countries to help us instead of complaining about our military and diplomatic efforts, we might be able to gain the necessary support to reach the resolution of this war.
Reforming a country that has lived under a dictator for so many years is very difficult, but that should be our national goal.
Most of all, you need to put aside the extreme hatred of President Bush. Then you should start working toward building worldwide excitement for the prospect of gaining another country for the free world. Help us win this war first - then work against our president, if you must.
-- Robert E. Hagaman, Homosassa
Set a date for withdrawal
"Staying the course" is not a strategy for bringing our unjustified and poorly planned Iraq misadventure to an end. There are no really good options to extricating ourselves from the mess we created in Iraq, and I emphasize that we are the ones who caused it. Because our actions resulted in an unstable Iraq, it would be irresponsible to immediately withdraw and leave it that way. The least bad alternative at this point is to set a date certain to end our military occupation - within a year - and to use that time to make a maximum effort to stabilize Iraq, to garner U.N. and NATO support and to leave Iraqis in charge of their own government and able to maintain their own security. We should not expect a self-governing Iraq to be a democratic model in our own image.
If, and only if, we succeed in getting significant U.N. and NATO support in the form of additional boots on the ground and financial assistance from other countries for rebuilding Iraq under the auspices of the United Nations, then we should be willing to keep a much smaller contingent of our forces there beyond the date certain, but that extension must not be indefinite. Such an extension must have finite and measurable criteria established as to when and under what conditions a final exit will be accomplished. Such an extension should be based upon a self-governing Iraq achieving specific goals within a specific time limit. At that point we should remove all of our military forces unless a self-governing Iraq requests our continued support, is willing and able to pay for it, and we deem that our continued support would serve our own interests.
Our exit from Iraq will put us in a position to put our full attention back on worldwide terrorism in full cooperation with other nations. I think we have proved that, mighty as we are, we are not invincible, and that the pursuit and elimination of nationless terrorists requires a real cooperative effort.
-- William Israel, St. Petersburg
Networks were negligent
I want an explanation. I want someone to explain to me why none of the major networks broadcast the May 24 presidential address. Can the executives from ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX really say with a straight face that the finale of The Swan, or the weekly installment of Yes, Dear, or the movie A Beautiful Mind was more relevant than the president's address about the war in Iraq and where we as a nation are headed with it?
With the election nearing, and the considerable unrest surrounding our involvement in Iraq, this was one of Bush's most important speeches yet. But in their finite wisdom, they decided that it was not worthy of the American public's time. By not airing that speech, they have done a disservice to the American public and shown their blatant disrespect for the office of the president.
Now, more than ever, this country needed to hear from its president; to hear about what has been accomplished in Iraq; to hear about what plans are in place to move ahead. But the media decided that wasn't important enough to preempt or reschedule its regular drivel. Clearly, the mainstream media would rather fuel anger and hatred than present a balanced view of this war. By not airing Bush's speech, the networks effectively exercised their own version of censorship and denied each of us full access to all the facts.
Fortunately, for some, there is cable news. Otherwise, we might all be forced to view the world with one eye closed.
-- Carol Wedge, Seminole
Hersh shows importance of a free press
Re: Hersh: "We've lost a tremendous amount of... credibility," May 22.
Thank you for Dan DeWitt's interview with Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker magazine on his stories of the abuse and torture of Iraqi detainees.
After reading the interview and the article by Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post on Hersh (Once again, he's the source, May 22), I realize how important a free and aggressive press is to a free society as governments, including our own, seek to control and hide information.
I hope and pray that Hersh is not a dying breed of journalist who is relentless in his pursuit of truth, for his brand of journalism is as important to a free democracy as is voting. I salute Seymour Hersh for exposing what is obviously a coverup of abuse and torture that is simply un-American. He has shown that "Torturegate" has reached to the top of the Pentagon and into the Oval Office.
-- Frank Lupo, St. Petersburg
War coverage is frustrating
Every day that I have picked up my newspaper for the past 3 weeks, I have seen an Iraqi prisoner on the front page. I wonder if you could please check back to the front page of your newspaper during World War II to see if there were pictures of either Japanese or German prisoners on it.
I would like to see pictures of American soldiers helping to build a war-torn country, but I guess that wouldn't sell any newspapers for you. I recently heard a soldier who just returned home from Iraq state that the news we read is nothing like what is really going on. If it was not an election year, I wonder whether we would be getting a different perspective here. I guess I am just frustrated with the whole coverage of this war. Our soldiers are risking their lives every day over there, but the American media seem to only empathize with the enemy. Yes, this is a real war, and we do have enemies!
-- Sharon Grady, Clearwater
Let troops protect us at home
Re: We're fighting a winnable war, letter, May 22.
The letter writer says Iraq is a winnable situation. I disagree. Terrorism cannot be fought by attacking countries, unless we want World War III. There are terrorists worldwide. They have no "country allegiance." We are now warned to be on the lookout for suicide bombers. When there are such fanatics loose in many countries of the world, just how do we fight a war on terrorism?
The Bush supporters are led to believe we went to war to "free the Iraqi people" from a sadistic tyrant. They conveniently forget the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that we were assured were in Iraq and were the basis for the war in the first place. What we have created in Iraq (that was not there before) is a haven for terrorists who have come into Iraq to humiliate the U.S. forces and prevent any progress toward democracy there.
For the sake of the men and women fighting fruitlessly against an enemy they are unable to distinguish, the troops should be brought home to better protect us from terrorists here, by patroling our borders and keeping out those who would do us harm. We are not supposed to be nation-builders, especially when our nation is falling apart.
-- Carolynne Paul, Brooksville
Enlisted personnel can't win
Re: Courts-martial in Iraq prison abuses.
For the enlisted personnel, this is a no-win situation. If they were ordered to abuse the prisoners and refused, that's disobeying an order from someone in authority, which can institute a court-martial proceeding.
Possibly reasoning that the Defense Department would never let something like the photographs and news of the abuses become public, they chose the lesser of two evils - obeying the orders, though they may have perceived them to be illegal.
As usual, the enlisted personnel will take the fall as they have though years of military justice. High-ranking officers seem immune to prosecution.
-- Dan Traylor, Pinellas Park
President needs our support
What short memories we Americans have! The twin towers were bombed the first time, our embassies were bombed, the USS Cole was bombed - all being slightly more than a blip on the radar for most Americans, unless we knew someone. We were just paper tigers with President Clinton in charge.
Then war was declared against us on 9/11, and the world changed as we knew it. We had a president who was willing to exercise the might and the will of our country. The war was taken to our enemies. The United States of America decided to fight back. No longer were we going to be the paper tigers.
Now again memories seem to be getting short. We're impatient at airports; we forget that we are at war. There are those who say that we acted in haste in Iraq. However we know there were WMD in Iraq. Where they went no one can answer. Were they destroyed? Were they hidden and yet to be discovered? Could they still be used against us? Good intelligence, bad intelligence. If administration officials believed that we were in danger, they had a duty to protect us. If something did occur and the president failed to act, then what? Hindsight is 20-20, but that is not the real world.
If John Kerry is elected, we will again be paper tigers who would need permission from the United Nations to defend ourselves. Could we survive?
There are issues on which I disagree with the president. I have that right.
Our troops and President Bush need our support, more now then ever. President Bush has my vote!
-- Ray Ulwelling, Venice
An incompetent incumbent
I am not impressed with the sophomoric bashing of presidential challenger John Kerry at a time when an incumbent president should be seeking re-election on his own record. This election is quite simple. President Bush is asking for four more years to "stay the course." Do we like the path this president has blazed in Iraq, on global diplomacy, on Medicare, protection of clean air and water, and with record budget deficits? Or are we bothered that Bush has further polarized and alienated our nation while taking us down dangerous and irresponsible paths? I think it is telling when Bush loyalists divert the attention from Bush's abysmal record and focus instead on trashing Kerry.
Is it possible even the most ardent Bush supporters are struggling to tiptoe around the mistakes this administration has made? Why are conservative Republicans also voicing concerns about Bush's objectives in Iraq, budget deficits and big government? Incompetent incumbents, regardless of party, should not be entitled to remain in office. Bush has not earned the right to keep his job.
-- Carey Caldwell, Tampa
Share your opinions
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.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.
