Congress should act promptly on 9/11 reforms
Letters to the EditorPublished July 27, 2004
All Americans owe a deep debt of gratitude to the families of those lost in the terrorist attack of Sept. 11. Their collective determination and resolve gave birth to the public hearings and investigations, which resulted in the comprehensive and exemplary 9/11 Commission Report, released last week. Reading it is a must for all of us.
I find it amazing that despite the fact that the content of the report has been generally praised, Congress has decided not to work on it until after their summer recess. To their credit, Sens. Susan Collins and Joseph Lieberman have correctly reacted and will convene hearings of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in August.
I am certain that terrorist cells throughout the world, bent upon our destruction, including those here in the United States, are not taking the next six weeks off; neither should our elected officials. We all need to contact our elected representatives and senators and tell them to get to work on this critical matter, not in September, or in the next session of Congress, but now! Our motto should be, "It's about our national security, stupid!" If our leaders think otherwise, they should review the number of 9/11 Commission Report copies sold thus far.
-- James M. Previtera, St. Petersburg
Clinton had many chances to respond
Re: 9/11 Commission Report.
As much as Michael Moore and the rest of the Bush-haters would like to overlook it, the Clinton administration had eight years to address the terrorism issue. During that period beginning in 1993, there were several terror attacks against U.S. interests both here and abroad as documented in the commission's report. There were numerous opportunities during this time for the Clinton administration and its intelligence agencies to strengthen security and take action against the terrorist cells that were active both here and abroad.
President Bush was in office less than eight months when the 9/11 attack occurred. The Bush administration had even gone so far as to try to maintain continuity between the administrations by keeping Richard Clarke as an adviser and George Tenet as director of the CIA. The comparison is simple, eight years versus eight months. It is totally disingenuous for the likes of Michael Moore and his type to attempt to lay the blame for 9/11 on the Bush administration. The commission's report clearly showed that.
-- Joe Wareham, Tierra Verde
President Bush did something
Re: The 9/11 report, July 23.
Your editorial states: "The Clinton and Bush administrations both failed to retaliate adequately in response to earlier al-Qaida provocations, such as the bombing of the USS Cole."
If my memory is correct, the attack on the USS Cole occurred while President Clinton was in office.
President Bush did something when we were attacked on 9/11. It was President Clinton's administration that failed to act on several terrorist attacks.
Had we acted decisively then, perhaps 9/11 would still only be an emergency telephone number.
-- Dan Conroy, Madeira Beach
Things have gotten worse
The 9/11 commission states that we are safer, but not safe. They cite that we haven't had another attack in the states since 9/11. The terrorists haven't had to attack the United States, because there are 140,000 targets available in Iraq. The terrorists, insurgents, Baathists and Iraqis have killed more than 900 Americans and wounded some 5,400 in Iraq.
Because of the pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation for no just reason, we have alienated most of the Arab world and aggravated the rest of the world. Bush is the most despised president we've ever had, because of his arrogance and Texas strut. Much of that disdain has rubbed off on the American people. Bush realizes now that if he had to invade any nation, it should have been Iran, not Iraq. However, having WMD programs does not mean a nation has to be invaded. No nation has ever invaded the United States for that reason.
-- Larry Dunn, Orange Park
What's really killing us
Re: America still isn't safe, panel warns, July 23.
The 9/11 commission is correct: "We are not safe." After billions of dollars spent on "homeland security" and the "war on terror," we know that there continues to be a threat. We may experience another attack on American soil. No one knows for sure.
What we do know is that each year cancer kills about 550,000 U.S. citizens, more that 16,000 Americans murder other Americans, and 30,000 of us commit suicide (National Vital Statistics Report). How many Americans did terrorists kill this year? Last year? Or in 2002?
Cancer, violent crime and depression touch most families. Billions of dollars could have a significant impact on reducing these real causes of death and suffering.
How much easier it is to invade other countries, warn us of threats and divert attention away from the economy, the deterioration of our civil rights, and the things that are actually killing us.
-- Michael Knox, Tampa
Fishing for party differences
Re: Democrat vs. Republican.
As the political climate heats up and political issues are discussed daily in the newspaper, on television and around the water coolers of America, a friend asked me recently, "What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans?"
My answer was based on the old saying: "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish and feed him for the rest of his life."
My answer was: "Democrats want to keep giving the guy a fish every day under the guise that they are helping prevent starvation. They buy the fish with taxpayer dollars with no plan on how or when the entitlement stops. Republicans want to teach the guy how to fish. They will subsidize the rod, reel and tackle box with taxpayer dollars but will make the guy a self-sufficient member of society, solve the problem of starvation and spend a lot less money in the process."
Had we done this with the welfare system we could have saved many millions of dollars. Now, who would you vote for?
-- David A. Byrnes, Clearwater
A matter of basic rights
Re: Couple sues to uphold gay marriage, July 21.
It's very sad that it is 2004, and we are still having a debate on an issue that involves the right to privacy, freedom of religion and equal protection under the law.
In a free society, one would expect that two consenting adults, regardless of their gender, would be able to determine who they want to make a legally binding contract with. Civil marriage is a legally binding contract where two parties commit to sharing their lives and belongings with each other exclusively. They share benefits from the marriage such as inheritance rights, making medical decisions, filing joint tax returns, etc.
No one is forcing anyone into a gay marriage, and no church is being forced to carry out this ceremony. Furthermore, there is no logical compelling state interest in denying this right to two consenting adults.
For anyone to deny such a right to two individuals, because it violates someone else's religious beliefs, is dead wrong. Unfortunately, groups such as the religious right continue to lobby our legislators, in hopes of imposing their religious opinions on others. Therefore, it is very important that fair-minded citizens, both religious and nonreligious, stand up and defend the rights of all citizens.
-- Michael Cote, Holiday
He's also looking for "full faith and credit'
So, two Bradenton women seek to enforce the "full faith and credit" clause in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution.
It is interesting that their marriage license is from Massachusetts, one of the states that does not give full faith and credit for a concealed weapons permit.
It's convenient for their lawyer Ellis Rubin to claim that "Every state should recognize the acts and legal findings of other states." I wonder when my carry permit will be recognized in New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C.?
Physicians must currently license themselves in each state they wish to practice in, and I'm fairly certain that Ellis Rubin's license to practice law in Florida is not recognized automatically across the United States.
When my carry permit, like my driver's license, is recognized in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia as it should be - a little thing called the Second Amendment), I will then entertain recognizing their marriage license across state lines.
I want my "full faith and credit" too!
-- Michael Perry, Tampa
Give them a special section
Re: They have been left alone in many ways and Out isn't in, July 18.
It wasn't surprising, but quite disappointing to see the homosexual obsession of the St. Petersburg Times land on the sports pages recently. You have now invaded and infused every section of the paper (on almost every day, and in almost every form of importance) with your compulsion to have people recognized because of the way they prefer to have sex. Is there a limit? Is there no news of more general interest?
I have a suggestion. Why not have a supplement for homosexuals' interest? The "Weekly (monthly, I wish) News For Same-Sex Groupies." That way, the huge majority of your subscribers who don't care about others' sexual preferences can use the section for "whatever," and those who thrive on what's happening in the homosexual world can satisfy their desires in one dose.
It would be no different than a special section on fishing, for seniors, for emergency preparations. Those who want it can read it; those who don't can toss it.
Just give the huge majority of folks who don't care a break from your constant drumming homosexual news and political correctness throughout your paper - and for sure, not in the Sports section.
-- Norman Haddad, Largo
First-class supports more than backs
Re: At hefty price, Martinez flew first-class, July 23.
First-class travel is a luxury we members of the proletariat can ill afford, even those of us with "bad backs."
I flew to Russia in 2001 and to Australia in 2003, "bad back," and all. (Unfortunately in coach.) With stenosis of the lumbar, degenerative and osteoarthritis and osteoporosis thrown in, I can empathize with Mel Martinez. But not for reasons of comfort. I felt no different from when I'm sitting too long at home.
Ah, were that I could get special treatment, with free drinks and attentive attendants, but that's for politicians (and their wives). We taxpayers should be happy to foot the bill, since it supports more than a bad back. It props up large egos as well.
-- Lilyan Dayton, New Port Richey
Many feel his pain
Re: At hefty price, Martinez flew first-class, July 23.
I have back pain. Can Mel Martinez's doctor write me a note so I can travel first-class too? Unfortunately, I won't have the taxpayers to pick up my tab.
It is appalling that tax money can't provide health care for poor people with bad backs, but it can fund a rich man's first-class travel. And his wife goes first class with him for "security" issues? Give me a break.
-- Louise Kanaan, Belleair
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.