Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

U.S. has a duty to live up to superpower responsibility

Re: War weary nation, editorial, Nov. 25.

Even if all that you say is true about the "despicable campaign tactics" the Bush administration has used, the undeniable fact is that President Bush took the correct path to uphold this country's superpower responsibility in deposing Saddam Hussein. This is the important crux of the matter. Since the end of the Cold War the entire world order has changed: There are no longer two superpowers but one, the United States. As soon as this country realizes this, the sooner we can unite and with our allies win the war on terror.

The United States has to take responsibility for making sure that weapons of mass destruction are never used. This responsibility also requires, when circumstances dictate, the use of pre-emptive means to diffuse the threat of WMD. Though we have succeeded in part, it does not mean the U.S. presence is not necessary in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East. To the contrary. Without our presence there would be civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites, and as the sole superpower it is our responsibility, since we are there, to see that civil war does not occur.

The Iraq war and the war on terrorism are one and the same, with global, strategic and WMD implications. It is imperative that the United States uphold its responsibility to reducing the WMD threat as well as continuing to maintain its presence in the Middle East because this is where terror against the United States and any WMD threat would originate, if there ever was one.

Stay the course

Re: War weary nation.

I read this editorial in utter disgust. Whoever wrote this has either not listened to what President Bush has been saying for the last couple of years or is ignoring what he has said. They seemed to have completely forgotten what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, and don't believe we were attacked and are now at war.

As far as John Murtha is concerned, I put him in the same category as flip/flop Sen. John Kerry. Neither one seems to know where they stand from one minute to the other.

Where were all the gutless critics in the House when an "immediate withdrawal" proposal was voted on? Why did so many shy away from voting for it since they had been verbally demanding it?

We need to stay the course in Iraq and Afghanistan, and when the mission is complete our troops will come home. We don't need to advertise to our enemies when this will be. We should leave on our own and not by any arbitrary timetable.

Don't blame the Democrats

Re: Democrats use critiques of Iraq war for political gain, letter, Nov. 23.

The writer refers to the Democrats using the Iraq war for political gain. How absurd. Anyone whose memory extends to the election of '04 knows that the Republicans put our troops' efforts to the most blatant, partisan use. Does the writer not remember the flight-suited president jauntily striding across the flight deck of an aircraft carrier in front of a banner proclaiming "Mission accomplished"?

As far as "subverting" the fantastic efforts of our extraodinary soldiers and Marines, we should focus on the incredibly poor planning by the Bush administration. Does anyone remember that the administration tolerated the complete breakdown of civil authority in Baghdad with the cavalier remark that "freedom is messy"? Or that they sent the entire Iraqi army home without pay, virtually inviting them to rise against us, and brushed off the insurrection with a jaunty "bring 'em on"? Or that they failed to send enough troops to seal the borders, assuring that the soldiers and Marines there would be facing suicide bombers and jihadists from the entire Islamic world?

But we should blame the Democrats for our travails in Iraq. Oh, sure, it's the far left's fault - if you ignore the fact that the right wing and the Republican Party have been in control of all three branches of the government during the entire war.

A menace to morale

Re: Poll: Most say Democrats' war criticism hurts morale, Nov. 28.

On Page 3 was a brief article reporting the results of a poll taken by RT Strategies of Washington, D.C. The poll showed that 70 percent of Americans believe that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale, with 44 percent saying it hurt a lot. By a ratio of almost 3 to 1, even self-described Democrats agreed.

According to the poll, a majority of Americans believe these senators are criticizing the war to "gain a partisan political advantage."

What kind of people are we electing to the Senate who would put their own personal agenda ahead of the best interests of our country? To me, they are loathsome, and I hope the voters remember them come election time.

A disrespectful cartoon

The Pat Oliphant cartoon on Nov. 22 is an insult to the citizens of the United States. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are portrayed as cornered animals with claws. No matter what your political opinion is, you should respect and hold in the highest esteem the office of the president and vice president of the United States.

Tell me how our troops and the rest of the world view this picture?

Trial gets one-sided treatment

On Nov. 25, I gave a radio interview on WMNF-88.5 about my father, professor Sami Al-Arian. A female listener phoned in to say that local media coverage of my father's case, much of it one-sided and lacking in context, did not give my father the presumption of innocence. A Nov. 26 Times article, Imam with links to Al-Arian arrested, now faces deportation, proved the caller's point.

While the news that Fawaz Damra was detained and held for deportation was reported elsewhere, it was your newspaper that decided to inject my father's name into the story. Indeed, the story uses Damra in the same manner the government has during five months of trial: to link my father to an inflammatory speech Damra gave 15 years ago. And while you devoted space to printing excerpts of this speech, you failed to mention that it was made four years before it was illegal to support the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Obvious questions were not raised or answered in this article. If Damra were so dangerous, as an immigration official implied in the story, why would he have been released on bail for nearly a year? Why was he sentenced to two months in jail (and four months' house arrest), less time than some shoplifters get? Why did the government choose not to indict him on conspiracy charges, preferring instead to use him as a bogeyman in my father's case? The failure to address these points indicates a reluctance to admit what we've been saying all along: This is a political, not a criminal, case. It also demonstrates the radio show caller's comment: My father has been tried not only by a court of law, but by the media, which continue to repeat allegations against him that were not proven in court.

[Last modified November 30, 2005, 02:15:38]