This is no time to neglect news of the war in Iraq
Published August 22, 2004
Why has President Bush's war in Iraq become secondhand news? There is still fighting going on. There are still 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. U.S. soldiers are still dying. Why have reports from Iraq become an afterthought, relegated to Page 8 or 11 of the daily newspaper? The situation is Iraq is bad and becoming worse, but it seems the media have grown tired of covering it. President Bush has spent $128-billion of our money on this folly, with no end in sight.
The Times, and nearly every other media outlet, is doing a great disservice to their customers by ignoring the gravity of what our country has done overseas. I believe coverage of the war in Iraq should be across the front page of the paper every day.
The people who brought us this war benefit by covering up the cost in lives and the personal tragedies felt by innocent people. Don't be afraid to show the horror of war. The public needs to see this and understand exactly what happens when we label someone as evil and decide to bomb them.
With the presidential election less than three months away, the Times, as a trusted, public media outlet, has an obligation to present the facts loudly and boldly, not buried in the back of the paper.
-- Gary Ryle, Oldsmar
Exposing the neocons
Re: Today Iraq; Next up Iran, Aug. 15.
I thought I would never see a truly incisive article, detailing the errors made by the Bush administration neocons written by a highly placed media person other than a national magazine editorialist. But to have the additional pleasure of reading a true outing of Charles Krauthammer (who should be a registered foreign lobbyist) compounds the pleasure.
The scary thing is the number of people who do not read these facts, who do not believe these facts or who intend to ignore these facts and who will vote to continue this group in office.
I congratulate Martin Sieff for this article and hope that he can turn out more factual pieces exposing President Bush and his neocons between now and the election.
-- Arthur Doyle, Holiday
A necessary strategy of war
Re: Today Iraq; Next up Iran, Aug. 15.
The many predictions and assertions made about Iraq before the U.S. invasion are irrelevant. The relevant fact is that we are at war - and have been, long before 9/11 (consider the Cole and first bombing of the World Trade Center).
We are in a war, not of our choosing, with Islamic religious fanatics. The invasion of Iraq was not "pre-emptive." It was a strategy essential to the war effort. A similar action with Iran could also become necessary. We need a base in the Middle East for large-scale military operations to protect the flow of oil. The overthrow of the Saudi and/or Kuwaiti governments by the fanatics would be catastrophic for the economy and the well being of the world. A strong, nearby U.S. military presence is essential for dealing with such a possibility.
Hopefully, Congress and the administration (Kerry or Bush) will strengthen our Middle East position - despite all the political hurdles posed by people such as Sieff. The world situation presents us with ruthless adversaries. Only strength can thwart them.
-- Donald Barnhill, Trinity
Planning for further conquest
What is currently happening in Iraq is what may be in store for Iran if the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld ticket prevails in November. It is clear they have their sights set on taking over Iran next, and likely can come up with sufficient propaganda to convince the naive among the us as they did for the unsupported aggression against Iraq. In fact, that propaganda has already begun.
This is an election people of conscience cannot ignore. There is little difference between the Bush dynasty's goals and those of Alexander the Great except that the Bush people just want the oil-rich countries of the Middle East under their control.
How many more of our young men and women must die to satisfy the wealth-building ambitions of a small number of already incredibly wealthy and powerful people in the United States?
-- M. Diane Hodson, St. Petersburg
To foil terrorist tactics
Nations and companies should make this clear to the terrorists: If they kill a hostage, 10, 50 or 100 will be sent to Iraq as replacements. That way, even if the hostage is killed, the terrorists will have failed to gain the desired pullout and, in fact, their position will be weakened and the Iraqi government's ultimate success more assured.
When their tactic stops working and proves counterproductive, they will stop abducting people. History has proven that appeasing madmen has terrible consequences for the appeasers. So why do we try? Maybe hostages' lives could be saved if someone in power sees this and promotes the idea.
-- Don Frank, St. Petersburg
We need affordable health care
Re: They'll take $90, but negotiations will start at $1000, by Martin Dyckman.
I can certainly identify with associate editor Martin Dyckman's tale of exorbitant charges for his son's blood work.
I ran a free clinic a few years ago, and it was evident that all charges are negotiable, be it hospital or lab. However, the general public is unaware. The motto of these entities is whatever the law allows, and then some.
We are the most wealthy industrialized nation. Our GNP exceeds that of all others. We have great resources and spend billions on wars and on foreign assistance, but we cannot see what our own countrymen need. How sad.
I've read many letters to the editor and some columnists who have great ideas along that line, but lobbyists shut down all debate and solutions. It is time for our electorate to speak with their votes.
The working poor, young single mothers, those who marry and lose their Medicaid coverage - all of these folks and more shouldn't have to suffer, and in some cases die due to lack of affordable medical care.
Voters must understand: It could be you next.
-- Lilyan Dayton, New Port Richey
Don't expect government to do it all
Re: Can consumers control health costs? letter, Aug. 15.
The letter writer asked some good questions. As a practical matter Medicare and Medicaid can be expected to provide health care coverage for the elderly and the poorest.
People with private health insurance plans certainly control their own health care costs because they have a choice to get coverage or forgo it and go alone. The letter writer is correct if he means that it would be foolish not to have some sort of health care plan.
Since private health insurance can be very expensive, there are other options for those with limited incomes who cannot qualify for government assistance. I think we can preclude any expensive government-paid plan as pie in the sky for the time being.
Catastrophic health insurance is generally inexpensive and would be a good place to start when thinking about buying your own health insurance. I have a catastrophic plan combined with a low-cost membership discount plan that provides significant savings for routine low-cost health needs such as checkups.
Instead of waiting for Uncle Sugar Daddy to come along and give you health insurance for "free" look at what's out there now.
-- Leonard Martino, Tampa
[Last modified August 22, 2004, 01:25:20]
