Online only letters to the editor

Changing opinions

Editor, The Times:

Letter writer Peter Kogler asserted "America's moral commission to be a powerful force for good in the world, to liberate the oppressed and to bring hope to the people of the world" ["The rogue clowns," Times, Northwest Voices, April 1]. I find it interesting that diehard supporters of President Bush's policy in Iraq suddenly became champions of "nation-building," the very practice that Bush disdained in his presidential platform in 2000, the minute he launched his pre-emptive strike against Saddam Hussein.

I wonder how many people like Mr. Kogler now espousing support for nation-building in Iraq howled in protest every time the Clinton administration used American troops for the same purpose in Haiti, Somalia and the Balkans.

As a U.S. Army veteran, I'd rather see us use American troops only when our national security is truly threatened and only after international diplomacy truly has been pursued.

— Kari Van Hoof, Renton

No more excuses for attorney firings

I've seen Charles Krauthammer and several letter-writers ["Alberto, we hardly knew ye, but" syndicated column, March 26, and "Justice revived," Northwest Voices, March 23 respectively] compare the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys by President Bush to President Clinton's firing of all the U.S. attorneys when he came into office.

I'm used to right-wingers obfuscating and twisting the truth, but usually not as blatantly, as in this instance.

Yes, Clinton fired all the sitting U.S. attorneys when he took office. But, Ronald Reagan fired almost all of them when he took over from Jimmy Carter. And George W. Bush did too, when he took over from Clinton. Even George H.W. Bush did, and he took over the presidency from a Republican!

The difference here is that President Bush fired U.S. attorneys whom he had appointed. Worse, he slipped language into the Patriot Act allowing him to appoint new U.S. attorneys to two-year terms without congressional approval. In other words, this was all premeditated and purely political!

The "Clinton did it!" argument used by conservatives has gotten very stale and old, and in this case, amounts to intellectual dishonesty.

— Michael Blake, Seattle

WASL woes

I am a junior attending Bellevue High and will graduate in 2008. I was reading "10th-grade WASL may ditch math and science" [News, March 26]. When I was notified that our class of 2008 would be the first to have to pass the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) as a graduation requirement, I questioned the fairness at the time.

Having passed the WASL, I am frustrated to hear that this requirement will now be eliminated as a graduation requirement and the entire math and science sections will be removed.

I am an average student and currently a level below my grade in math. However, the math and science sections of the WASL were not difficult. If students can't pass the WASL, it is clear they are not ready for life after high school.

There must be an effective way to make sure kids are functional in math and science at the levels necessary for the real world.

Whatever replaces the WASL, it must be soon. The education system in Washington is not fulfilling its obligation to prepare its students for the future.

— Timothy Joyce, Bellevue

Corrie support

It has been some time since I read a letter to the editor as offensive as that written by Winston Rockwell ["Diversion of the masses," Northwest Voices, March 30]. His words summed up Olympia college student Rachel Corrie as a fool. Corrie saw firsthand the suffering inflicted on the Palestinians at the hands of the Israelis, and like other activists, she decided to do something to stop it.

On that fateful day she elected to defend the home of a Palestinian family, and stood in front of a bulldozer bent on demolishing it. The operator knew she was there, she had been there for some time, and she was wearing blaze orange. The operator, playing cat-and-mouse, may have assumed that Corrie would remove herself from harm at the last second before becoming crushed. Corrie, however, stood her ground, and the operator stupidly and willfully murdered her with the bulldozer.

Had this happened in the United States, the operator would now be in prison. But instead, Israel yawned. So did most Americans, who don't really give a damn about Palestinians or their situation.

So why would Rachel Corrie, a bright, pretty, young woman with a bright future ahead of her, risk so much? The answer, Mr. Rockwell, is some things are worth dying for.

— Matt Travis, Fall City

The nerve of Rabbi Anson Laytner ["The aesthetic distance," Northwest Voices, March 30]. Since when do Jews have a right of censorship? The production of "My Name is Rachel Corrie" was delayed in New York because of Jewish intimidation.

This type of bullying should be roundly condemned by all who value open discourse.

— George Evans, Edmonds