Today's Letters: Columbia University's welcome to Iranian president is an outrage

By LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Published September 25, 2007

For Columbia University to give Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a platform for his hate speech is an outrage and an offense to every true American. It's not like these liberal elites are unaware of his hatred of America and Jews and his desire to annihilate Israel. Why he is so open, he denies the truth of the Holocaust!

Before Ahmadinejad left Iran, he once again spouted his hatred for America, accompanied by banners in the background that read, "Down with America." It has also been proven that Iran is supplying IEDs and some of their elite Republican Guards to kill our military in Iraq.

It is insult enough that he is coming to our country, but the American taxpayer will be footing the bill for the thousands of extra dollars to provide him Secret Service protection while he uses his time at Columbia as a photo-op for propaganda purposes all over the world.

Columbia says it will show how open-minded we are. Yes, we have become so "open-minded" and politically correct that we are expected to tolerate and even welcome evil!

Columbia says that they want to be open to free expression of ideas, that is unless you are an American with traditional values. They kicked the ROTC off campus. Last year, students stormed a stage at Columbia and attacked Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minutemen, a group that patrols the border between America and Mexico. They canceled his invitation to speak this year.

It seems that the only free speech and discussion that the liberal elites of Columbia University want are those that agree with their anti-American leftist views. They are truly a bunch of hypocrites.

At the least, Columbia should be made to reimburse the federal government for the cost of the Secret Service and any other expenses incurred.

Joanne M. Porter, Hudson  

A Democrat defeat

On Sept. 20, on the front page over the fold, were six photos from YouTube similar to those that were shown during the Democratic debate earlier this year. These questions are apparently what the Republicans can expect later this month. What is the point? Most of the questions from YouTube will be juvenile.

More important, though, inside the paper on Page 6A was the article that should have been on Page 1A, over the fold, Senate rejects curbs on tour duty. The legislation was defeated for the second time this year by a vote of 56-44. All the Democratic senators voted for the legislation with the help of six Republicans. Every nay vote but one, by independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, was from the Republicans.

This vote was no more than a flea flicker by the Democrats to lose the war in Iraq by making troop movement difficult for the Defense Department. The question is why, if the Democrats want to lose in Iraq, don't they vote on removing the money for the troops? The answer is easy. The Democrats know that the country will rise up as they did on amnesty for illegal aliens. They don't have the guts to do want they wish to do because they know it would lead them to a defeat in the 2008 elections.

I understand the Times liberal position in not making a Democratic loss a front-page issue. I also understand that position is incorrect. You are supposed to report the news without bias. As a 30-year subscriber, I just want the Times to be honest in its reporting.

Salvatore Reale, Seminole

Party has lost its way

I worked at the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee many years ago. I have run or worked on campaigns for Democrats at every level and voted in every election I could. That being said, I have reached the conclusion that should I ever vote again it will not be for a Democrat. At this point I would encourage Democrats to sit out this election.

The Democrats were swept into power on a promise to get America out of the civil war in Iraq. Not only have they capitulated to the Republicans at every opportunity for meaningful change, they also have turned and attacked the organizations that are against the war.

That, added to the fact that the DNC is about to ignore the Florida voters' choice in the primary, indicates that the Democrats have lost their way. I am not sure whom they represent now, but it is clearly not the people who voted for them.

David Schauer, St. Petersburg

Mercenary mystery

I read recently that there are more than 20,000 private contracting-soldiers in Iraq, all paid directly or indirectly by the U.S. government. What is this costing us?

The Web site for Blackwater USA advertises "contract opportunities" for personal security specialists. With eight years' experience, the base salary is $550 per day, or about $200,000 per year. By comparison, a U.S. soldier, sailor or Marine E6 with similar experience gets paid $30,000 per year, or only $82 per day.

In The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon blamed the fall of Rome on the loss of civic virtue among Roman citizens who outsourced their duties to mercenaries. I am immensely proud of our volunteer citizen-soldiers fighting for Iraqi freedom. Yet, what is wrong at the top (or behind the scenes) that makes the use of mercenaries so necessary and acceptable? Not only is there something morally bankrupt about this discrepant accounting for the value of the lives of those we put in harm's way, it also calls into question why else we might be fighting in Iraq.

Fred Jacobsen, Apollo Beach

The newest Americans Sept. 21, Thomas Friedman column

Keep trying

Enlightening, yes. Disturbing, even more so. I am an optimist at heart and want to believe that we change the environment by using long-lasting compact fluorescent light bulbs and driving hybrid cars, etc.

I would suggest your readers check out Bill Mc-Kibben's recent book Deep Economy for a look at what each of us can do to make this world a better place. If Americans are responsible for global warming, as Friedman suggests, then Americans must take the lead in making positive change!

Ginny Leeds, St. Petersburg

Devoted donors Sept. 17, story

Better ways to contribute

You will pardon my idealism when I tell you that donating money to colleges to get your name on a building fails to be impressive as far as philanthropy goes. Advancement directors at any college in the country will be happy to tell you what a lofty, noble donation you are making. But volunteers at homeless shelters, domestic violence shelters, animal shelters, people who work with hungry or neglected children, who provide services to the elderly or a hundred other things might beg to differ with them.

Philanthropy is helping promote human welfare. What these donors are doing is offsetting operational budgets. If you really want to change people's lives through education, start a scholarship, because your donation will never trickle down to people who actually need it.

It is your money to do with as you wish. However, the rest of us have grown weary of patting you on the back and reading about it on Page 1.

Heather Nichol, St. Petersburg

Iranian president assails U.S. Sept. 23, story

Let Ahmadinejad speak

So Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "assails" the United States and "takes a belligerent stance" days before addressing the United Nations.

What else is new? Should he be allowed into this country to spew his venom while being protected by the very security he denounces?

Sure. Why not? No one will be swayed by his radical pronouncements that Israel should disappear from the face of the Earth or that the Holocaust was just a propaganda campaign about an event that never happened. The world will be able to see and hear what a crackpot he is and treat him accordingly.

But at the same time, let's not forget that he is the nominal leader of a powerful, rich and populous nation on the brink of possessing nuclear arms capability. Better to let him speak and know where he is than let him do his plotting and scheming in secrecy.

G.B. Leatherwood, Spring Hill

[Last modified September 24, 2007, 21:02:04]