Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Will the president's taking responsibility ease pain he caused?

Re: Bush: Bad info, but good call, Dec. 15.

Bad call and bad info, period!

Let's stop comparing apples to oranges! The terrorist attack on Sept. 11 had absolutely no correlation with the war on Iraq. The war against terrorism resulted from retaliation while the war against Iraq resulted from aggression. Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida network still remain as much a terrorist threat as ever. The war against Iraq was based on Saddam Hussein producing weapons of mass destruction while no threat of terrorism was evident.

President Bush said that he accepted responsibility for waging war in Iraq based partly on faulty intelligence. Let's not forget that WMD were the primary reason and that weapons inspectors were combing Iraq finding nothing and continually asking for more time.

I hope the pain and suffering borne by the families and loved ones of the more than 2,000 American troops lost in Iraq are somewhat eased by Bush's acknowledgement of responsibility.

I hope Americans here at home who were dependent on health care and other programs that were scaled back or cut because of funding needed for the war are somewhat eased by Bush's acknowledgement of responsibility.

I hope the Iraq elections are successful so we can get out and President Bush can hold his head high in victory and make the history books.

I hope 2008 gets here before we know it!

He's not really taking responsibility

Is Bush really taking responsibility for his actions? I don't think so. He says, "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong." What about all of the intelligence that was right that he chose to ignore? What about his being warned that certain intelligence was faulty and using it anyway? And remember, when we all knew the intelligence was bad, he gave the CIA's George Tenet the Medal of Freedom?

And why is he suddenly saying something that in some small way resembles the truth? Poll numbers. Remember what the administration and the media did to U.N. inspector Hans Blix? He found no weapons of mass destruction and they made a fool of him in the American public's eye. Remember the generals whose careers were ruined because they disagreed with the administration about the war? Remember Richard Clark? Remember Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame?

Bush still thinks his decision to remove Hussein was the right thing to do. We have had more than 2,100 U.S. military personnel killed and many more injured. Estimates of Iraqi citizen deaths from the war and occupation range from 30,000 to more than 100,000. Some $250-billion to $300-billion has been allocated to the war with another $100-billion on the way. Incidents of terrorism are at their highest level since they started being recorded in 1968. Iraq is now a terrorist breeding ground.

A ratings maneuver?

How convenient that George W. Bush should finally accept responsibility for his mad and ill-fated rush to war. I wonder how much his plummeting approval ratings prompted him to this admission? Once again we see Bush's inability to lead responsibly and his incredible powers of hindsight. Unfortunately, this "flip-flop" cost us more than 2,100 American lives so far!

Isn't it time for impeachment?

President Bush finally says he accepts responsibility for going to war in Iraq. So what good is that, unless the impeachment proceedings can begin?

He can claim faulty intelligence and get off easily, but most of us who don't buy into his rationalizations about his reasons for going to war, know that he was determined to go to war before he took office because he wanted to go down in history as a "wartime president."

He and his whole bunch of warmongers should be tried for crimes against the American people, but where are the statesmen with guts enough to begin the process?

Put death count in perspective

Many media outlets find it necessary to remind us on a daily basis of how many U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq since the invasion.

By way of perspective, without discounting the irreplaceable loss suffered by the families in all cases, it might be interesting to know how many have died in traffic accidents in the United States since the same date, or how many homicides there have been in the country or even how many have died on U.S. 19 in the same period.

We know that the deaths in Iraq can be dedicated to bringing democracy to the Middle East with a view to making the United States secure. Those in the other instances we know with certainty to be completely without redeeming value.

Troop training realities in Iraq

I keep hearing and reading complaints about the lack of combat readiness on the part of the Iraqi army. One commentator even said we train our troops in six weeks and they have had two years. This shows a lack of understanding of what constitutes a combat-ready unit.

Six weeks' training is just as it says: basic training. The U.S. Marines had 13 weeks when I went in. After troops complete basic training, they are still just a herd of privates. It is then that their real training begins. They are trained by experienced noncommissioned officers. This is where the problem with the Iraqi "slowness" lies. There is a lack of trained Iraqi NCOs, and it takes time to train competent NCOs.

In our services, it takes two to three years to train junior NCOs (corporals and sergeants) and longer for the more important staff NCOs. The same is true with the officer corps.

We disbanded Saddam Hussein's army because its leadership was mostly made up of pro-Saddam people whose loyalty was to his Baathist regime, not to Iraq.

In our army, after two years, the basic soldier would be ready to be a junior NCO, a second lieutenant, possibly a captain.

The Iraqis are actually doing fine to be at the level they have attained. Things move faster in war, leaders appear quicker, but some people expect miracles. Let things progress as they will, and the new Iraqi army will do just fine.

Recognize our troops' successes

I feel we should continue to support our war heroes and recognize their successes in Iraq. Their progress and accomplishments in Iraq are phenomenal. Thanks to our military effort, the foundation for a successful democracy will be established in Iraq. Millions of Iraqi citizens have been liberated from Saddam Hussein's brutal regime.

Furthermore, I am amazed at the bravery of the Iraqi people. They have risked their lives to exercise their right to vote. They have embraced their newfound freedom with the utmost optimism. I often wonder how many of us Americans would risk our lives to go out and vote. I feel that many of us have forgotten the price of our own freedom. It is difficult for us to imagine living under dictatorships like those of Hussein, Hitler and Stalin.

As our troops continue to stay the course and to see their mission to a successful conclusion, I feel it is important to recognize their accomplishments and ask the media to purposely seek out the many positive stories our military men and women are instrumental in creating. We all should recognize that we still face tough times ahead, as we did over 200 years ago when our country fought to obtain America's freedom. This war is about humanitarianism in which we will secure freedom for the Iraqi people and open the gates for freedom in the rest of the Middle East. Let us never forget that American soldiers are liberators, not occupiers.

Of course, there is different treatment

Re: What's a terrorist, what's a freedom fighter? Dec. 12.

On the front page Susan Martin compared IRA terrorist groups with Arabic ones. And concluded ". . . the United States doesn't treat all terrorist groups alike . . ."

Of course we don't. And I'm surprised a seasoned senior correspondent would even think the United States should.

I'm not Jewish, but when she used this quote from an author to corroborate her position, I almost spit coffee all over my keyboard: "In contrast, the Jewish lobby has been more powerful in the U.S. than the Palestinians."

Illegal Irish groups are tolerated more than Arabic ones because the Irish don't walk around New York with bombs strapped under their tartans. The Irish groups don't blow Americans up because of our economic and political ties to England. Irish terrorist groups do not promote martyrdom with an ambivalent, if not deliberate, view of killing civilians of other nations.

Is it fair that some terrorist groups are treated with less disdain than others? I suppose not. But when it comes to terrorist groups, I hardly think "fairness" is a controlling issue!

Few Americans approve of Irish groups blowing up anything, even English barracks. And (not instead) they don't approve of the activities of Arabic terrorist groups.

Most Americans understand quite well that the Arabic terrorist groups are more zealous, more anti-American, and less compassionate toward innocent life than any other groups aligned against American interests.

If Susan Martin knows this, she should stop pandering to the self-righteous curmudgeons of the left and put a little more sense into her writing.

A proper focus

Susan Taylor Martin is now my heroine. Her story, What's a terrorist, what's a freedom fighter?, was an excellent piece of journalism and put the spotlight right where it needs to be: on the U.S. Attorney's Office in Tampa.

How ironic that Sami Al-Arian at first denied any links with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. And in Monday's story, assistant U.S. Attorney Robert O'Neill denied any involvement with Sinn Fein, which is said to be the political arm of the Irish Republican Army. O'Neill also said he never spoke to Colin Breen, his co-owner of Four Green Fields, about Breen's support for Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams.

Hmm. O'Neill didn't know anything about his business partner being involved with the most notorious name in Irish politics? Can we expect the Snoop Act, oh, I mean the Patriot Act, to be put to use to find out the truth about Breen and O'Neill? No. I'll count on Susan Taylor Martin to do that job.

The distinctions are clear

Re: What's a terrorist, what's a freedom fighter?

It appears you are now trying to legitimize the Mideast terrorists by equating them with freedom fighters. It is incredible to me that you believe you can make such a quantum stretch in logic to place Islamic Jihad and Hamas on the same plane as the IRA. It is also unbelievable that you fail to make the critical distinction between Gerry Adams and Sami Al-Arian.

Al-Arian is a resident of the United States. As such, he is required to comply with our laws and, if he wants to be accepted by our society, then he should conform to our culture. If he did not engage in despicable behavior he would be tolerated and supported in any peaceful endeavors he would pursue, just as any other American would be. There is ample evidence of this in the fact that he was a respected member of the community before his ties to Islamic Jihad were exposed.

On the other hand, Gerry Adams is a foreign politician, not a U.S. resident. When he came here in 1999, the IRA and Britain had reached some sort of agreement and the violence ceased. Hence, he was here as a messenger of peace, not an advocate of slaughter. That is why Americans welcomed him and prosecuted Al-Arian.

The distinction between the IRA and Mideast terror groups lies in their goals. The IRA wanted to end discrimination toward the Catholic population in Northern Ireland. The group wanted an equal voice in politics and an end to British interference. Once a compromise was achieved, the violence stopped. They did not seek the end of England and the death of all the English. Furthermore, they never threatened America or American interests at any time during their hostilities.

Islamic Jihad, Hamas, al-Qaida and all the rest of the Mideast terror groups are united in their hate for Israel and the Jewish people. They want nothing less than the total destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews living in the Mideast. They will slaughter anyone who they believe sympathizes with Israel. They have, on numerous occasions, killed Americans as well as others.

I believe these distinctions provide most clear thinking Americans with the vision necessary to distinguish freedom fighters from terrorists.

A difference in tactics

Re: What's a terrorist, what's a freedom fighter?

I'd like to answer this question. While terrorists and freedom fighters often share similar aims, it is their tactics that differ. Terrorists attack civilian targets and are happy to kill anyone unlucky enough to be present. Freedom fighters know that "anything goes" is not a legitimate way to advance their cause.

[Last modified December 17, 2005, 01:01:18]