Text Size:
A|
A|
A
Email
PrintStifling debate on this war is counter to patriotism
In Wednesday's speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, President Bush cited Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who sides with Mr. Bush in saying that it is too early for Americans to pull out of Iraq ("Bush Sees Rebuilding Successes in Iraq," Dec. 8). Recently, Sen. Lieberman also said, "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he'll be commander in chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."
I disagree. The First Amendment enumerates our right "to petition the government for a redress of grievances." If Americans don't challenge a president who is bankrupting our treasury, destroying our moral leadership and jeopardizing our national security, then we fail as patriots.
Joe Lieberman is a member of the "world's greatest deliberative body," yet he is trying to stifle debate instead of becoming part of the solution by joining the majority of Americans in questioning President Bush's foreign policy.
Teddy Roosevelt said in 1918, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
SCOTT MANLEY
Carnegie
Timetable now
I am a Marine Corps veteran who spent 12 weeks of boot camp at Parris Island and four weeks of advanced infantry training, and, as the Corps told us, we were "combat ready." During World War II even less time might have been spent training, and during Vietnam, probably about the same. My point is that we have been training Iraqis for three years, and they are still not ready. If Americans can be trained in 16 weeks and sent off to combat, why is it taking so long to train Iraqis?
U.S. Rep. John Murtha, a Marine Corps veteran, had the tenacity to call the Bush strategy flawed. It is time to get out, but I take exception to the immediate withdrawal, since there must be a timetable for departure. Whether the table is purely illusory or not, set one up, proceed to get out and, hopefully, do so with dignity.
The terrorists are a band of guerillas running about the country who are willing to kill themselves to take the lives of anyone in their way. They have no country, Army, Air Force, Navy or state-of-the-art equipment, as we have. You will not wipe them out, and I believe our very presence breeds insurgency. Once we are out of Iraq, I believe the insurgency will stop.
As in Israel, a democracy in the Middle East would be wonderful, but historically it has always been in turmoil, and I simply do not see any form of democracy subsisting in this dysfunctional area.
HERMAN J. BIGI
Monongahela
Job security ploy
We appear to be entering that phase of the election cycle that might be described as "The Moderation of Rick Santorum." During the year prior to an election, the senator backs away from his often extreme positions and attempts to reposition himself as someone in the political mainstream.
While this ploy worked well for him in 2000, the senator, leaving nothing to chance, is accepting the support of "Americans for Job Security," a shadowy organization based in Virginia. Apparently dedicated to the senator's job security, AFJS is spending substantial sums to influence a Pennsylvania election while refusing to identify its big-money contributors ("Casey Faults Santorum Over Ads," Dec. 6). We can only assume that they consist of the usual special interests that actively espouse the radical agenda that the senator puts forth in their service.
In a switch of political tricks, rather than smearing a political opponent, their TV ads saturating the Pennsylvania market distort the senator's position on Social Security.
The ads suggest falsely that Mr. Santorum is now a defender of this venerable and highly successful social safety net. The senator was, as we remember, among the most visible and vocal proponents of the Bush administration's ill-conceived scheme to privatize Social Security, the first step in achieving their actual goal of undermining and ultimately destroying the system.
That plan has been defeated for now, but it doesn't stop Sen. Santorum from relying on surrogates to help him represent the opposite of what he believes in a chilling Orwellian fashion.
ALLAN SEAMAN
Edgeworth
Don't fall for it
I truly hope people are not falling for the TV ads in support of Rick Santorum regarding his position on Social Security. I recall his speech at Duquesne University in which he pressed very hard for a change to personal accounts for Social Security.
I don't think he was trying to "save" Social Security, more like destroy it. Now he is behind in the polls for next year's election, and he is claiming to have saved it for our seniors. He has not "saved" anything.
It is a dishonest political ad, and I do hope people recognize this.
I also hope people remember that he had the Penn Hills school district pay for his children's education even when he did not live there.
MICHELE JANOSKO
Robinson
Study in opposites
I can't help wondering if the juxtaposition of two photos on the Nov. 28 front page was intentional. It certainly was ironic.
There was Air Force Tech. Sgt. Jamie Dana with her companion-in-arms, a dog called Rex ("Wounded Soldier to Keep Her On-Duty Dog"). The poignant story about Tech. Sgt. Dana's determination to find and keep Rex was an example of the very real human-animal bond, a bond of interdependence, respect and affection that so many people are fortunate enough to know, and that psychologists, therapists, counselors and others are increasingly acknowledging and investigating.
Right above Jamie Dana and Rex was Saltsburg barber Ron Mancabelli, shown in his shop with a stag's head posed in his barber chair ("It's That Time of Year"). The head was propped up under a barber's cape so that the animal appeared to be sitting in the chair. Other examples of taxidermy and, oh, yes, the requisite American flag completed the decor. The caption told us that the barber sets up this vignette each year to indicate he's gone hunting.
Thank heaven that for every Ron Mancabelli, there is at least one Jamie Dana. These days, despite the embarrassing, atavistic pro-hunting propagandists all around us here in Western Pennsylvania, I'll bet that ratio is increasing. I'm confident more people were inspired by Jamie Dana than were amused by Ron Mancabelli and his yuk-yuk stunt.
REBECCA TAKSEL
Edgewood
A nicely cleared trail
I wanted to take a moment on a cold and wintry day to thank the Pittsburgh Department of Public Works crew for keeping the Eliza Furnace Trail cleared of ice and snow. It was a pleasant surprise last Friday morning to find the trail free of the 6 inches of snow from the previous night.
I know the main reason they keep it clear is for the folks using the Greyhound Station and Second Avenue parking lot, but we all-weather all-season bike commuters sure appreciate the open trail. Also, the other folks who like the open trail are the walkers and joggers -- there is nothing better than a nice clear trail to exercise on in the winter.
So, once again, thanks for all your efforts. You are helping to keep Pittsburghers healthy through the cold and bleak days, allowing us to save gas by not using our cars and making it easier for more people to enjoy the great outdoors. Keep up the good work!
MICHAEL SOBKOWIAK
Oakland
A time saver
About the "name of the holiday" flap: I suspect this has more to do with our tendency to condense than any desire to include/exclude/make a political statement. Like a lot of folks, I got tired of saying "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year." It just takes too long.
Happy Holidays (note the "s" implying plural -- as in "more than one") is just quicker and neater. It's not that important, folks -- say what you want and let others do the same. It's a free country, at least for a while longer.
DANIEL F. CAREY
South Side
Law students don't have to listen to recruiters
The editorial regarding the allowing of military recruiters on law school campuses ("War of Words," Dec. 10) begs one question: Why would it be necessary for any student to attend such a meeting? Just because they may have to be furnished admission does not mean that anyone needs to sit there and listen to the recruiters' spiel.
All the students need to consider is the daily casualty list of dead and injured and also consider how the Pentagon/White House will not allow the caskets of the dead heroes to be photographed.
Surely any student attending law school should be sufficiently intelligent to understand what is taking place on the national and world stages.
H.R. HANNA
Whitehall
