Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Wesch fired because of lack of majority support

Editor: Re: Ousting of county administrator was shameful, letter to the editor April 12, Times.

One must ponder whether (letter writer) Frank Yetner was writing as the former chair of the Citrus Democrats or as his alter ego, Pinky the Clown.

The thrust of Yetner's tortuous argument seems to suggest that he blames Republican Party official Bill Grant for conspiring with a majority of the county commissioners to bring about the firing of County Administrator Richard Wesch.

Grant's second infraction being that he is acting for several defendants whose profile makes them the subject of public contempt. We may not like it, but the American legal system provides entitlement for the best legal representation possible. This sounds like a fundamental tenet of the party which Yetner represents.

As to the allegation that Grant is a grandstander, this is true of virtually every prominent member of both major parties. Frank Yetner specifically included.

Wesch was fired because he failed to enjoy the support of the present majority. The same fate as befalls the Crystal River city manager with monotonous regularity. Only Frank DiGiovanni of Inverness has discovered the secret of perpetual existence. Other local administrators rise and fall at the whim of their employer.

As a nation, we all love the fantasy that everything political must be a part of some dire conspiracy. Aside from Watergate, notable proven examples are difficult to list.

The deciding Wesch vote proposed by Commissioner Vicki Phillips, seconded by Joyce Valentino and supported by Gary Bartell, has no discernible link to Bill Grant or even Jack Ruby. The whole concept is ludicrous.

Given the ill health of the county Democratic Party, the blood fest at Sugarmill Woods and their continuously eroding minority vote, it is hard to see that Frank Yetner is advancing the cause.

As the ubiquitous disclaimer, I have no personal association with either Bill Grant or Frank Yetner, and I am neither an unconditional supporter of Democrats or Republicans. Both parties have their failings in exactly equal measure.

Service not required to oppose Iraq war

Editor: Re: Unless you have served, you shouldn't protest war, Letters Wednesday, Citrus Times: Mr. Guard, who had a letter printed on April 12, should be congratulated for his service in World War II and Korea.

His letter took me back to that era and the time I went to Fort Riley, Kan., for a preinduction physical. I was young, had quit college and was eager to take up an M1 Garand and do my bit in the "Big Red One." I failed the physical because of heart murmurs. Less than a year later I was called by my draft board and failed again for the same reasons. The Navy recruiter turned down my application because of those failures. So I was destined not to serve.

However, one of the demonstrators whom I met while standing in the peace demonstrations did serve in Korea and wears his bronze star to the demonstrations.

There is also a newly returned veteran from Iraq and at least one parent of a man now in Afghanistan. And we have a strong representation of veterans from World War II and thereafter. We even have one from the RAF in Britain. So not all demonstrators are divorced from the liability of putting their lives "on the line." However, if military service overseas is the only mark of who should be allowed to participate, many of our older women, who came from an era when a smaller percentage of the military was formed by women, are automatically disqualified.

If, as Mr. Guard has argued, Bush did not lie but was deceived by "faulty intelligence," we are posed with a dilemma. If he lied, we probably should not be in Iraq, but if Bush was gullible and reacted to "faulty intelligence," should we still be there? No. Either way, the reasons for starting this war do not hold water.

Just because a person voluntarily enlists, should they be sent to a war which is not justified? If they enlisted just for the thrill of danger and action, maybe yes. But if they enlisted to support their country when it really is endangered, no. If they were induced to enlist because they can perhaps be helped to get an education or in time earn a retirement, is that a reason to endanger them in an unwarranted war? No.

I honor Mr. Guard's service, just as I honor my uncle who copiloted B-24s in WWII or my great-grandfather's service in the Civil War, when he had his horse shot from under him at Gettysburg. We owe all our veterans a lot.

But, like all Americans, veterans and nonveterans alike, they owe their country a calm and rational consideration of war and peace in situations like Iraq. It is a general requirement of informed citizenship. After all, Bush was empowered to send men and women to war, even though he never served in harm's way himself.

[Last modified April 21, 2006, 01:41:14]