I don't like letters in the "New" New York Times anymore, because they tell you to web-up to read them all.
This after they charge you more for less!
And then they DISPARAGE the web!
Otherwise, why are they IGNORING RON PAUL?
Bush in Iraq: Short Visit, Long War (7 Letters)
To the Editor:
Re “Bush, in Iraq, Says Troop Reduction Is Possible” (front page, Sept. 4):
President Bush wants as much leeway to wage war in Iraq as possible, so that in two years he can pawn off blame for the inevitable withdrawal to his successor. He knows that Congress and the American public want withdrawal now, and he has no intention of giving it to us.
But he knows he can use that desire to his ends. And so he promises us that we will finally get what we want — just as soon as the surge works. And, of course, for that to happen, we must continue to pour money into the war and to keep our troops there indefinitely.
Of course, the problem with that is that the surge is not working and can never work. And he knows it. But he wants to make us believe that it will, so he can continue getting what he wants from us. He wants us to have a vested interest in giving him what he wants, in the expectation that it will lead to our getting what we want.
Don’t play his crooked game.
Michael B. English
Washington, Sept. 4, 2007•
To the Editor:
When President Bush says that leaving Iraq would make it more likely that our enemies would attack us at home, does he mean that warrantless wiretapping, interrogation under torture, and the Department of Homeland Security are ineffective in protecting the American people from terrorism?
Patricia Kenney
Whitestone, Queens, Sept. 4, 2007•
To the Editor:
That four years after “Mission Accomplished,” the president must sneak under maximum secrecy into a remote desert location says volumes about the true state of the Iraq war.
Tom Martinson
Minneapolis, Sept. 4, 2007•
To the Editor:
Re “Bush Fights Back on Iraq Debate” (front page, Sept. 1):
Vibrant and lively debate about one of our nation’s most pressing issues is not “politics”; it is democracy. And it is specious, and very undemocratic, for President Bush and other members of his administration to imply that raising legitimate questions about our nation’s actions is wrong.
We have imposed ourselves and our values upon this embattled region of the world, mostly to our detriment, and our national conversation must advance to acknowledging our mistakes and rebuilding relationships among the nations there, and in all parts of the world.
Jonathan Biatch
Madison, Wis., Sept. 1, 2007•
To the Editor:
It is all well and good for President Bush to warn, “The stakes in Iraq are too high and the consequences too grave for our security here at home to allow politics to harm the mission of our men and women in uniform” (front page, Sept. 1).
But if Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were truly concerned about our men and women in uniform, they would reinstate the draft so that the same weary and overworked group of soldiers don’t have to serve three, four and five highly dangerous tours of duty in Iraq.
Gary W. Priester
Placitas, N.M., Sept. 1, 2007•
To the Editor:
Re “Snow Job in the Desert,” by Paul Krugman (column, Sept. 3):
President Bush is now laying the groundwork for the widely anticipated report this month by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq. There should be no doubt that General Petraeus will say that “progress is being made” and that more time is needed to actually complete the job.
General Petraeus is a very intelligent and highly respected man in the military, but he must be aware that if he does not come back with a report to the president’s liking, he will share the fate of the widely respected, intelligent and ominously prescient Gen. Eric K. Shinseki.
Does one really expect a young career officer to risk his future to speak the truth to George W. Bush and in doing so throw away his future in the military? He is in the position of trying to accomplish the impossible and to remain an active military officer. The two positions are not compatible.
This Iraq disaster will continue indefinitely, and after General Petraeus another general will take up the baton.
Bill Williams
Sun City West, Ariz., Sept. 3, 2007•
To the Editor:
If a fawning American mainstream media uncritically accepts Gen. David H. Petraeus’s forthcoming rosy scenario without verifiable evidence to support it, as it did Secretary of State Colin L. Powell’s, shame on the media and shame on us if we fall for the same trick a second time.
Ted S. Corin
Austin, Tex., Sept. 3, 2007
[And if he is allowed to attack Ira, the media and government usurpers should be jailed and executed under Nuremburg Law!]
