Online only letters

Withdrawing from Iraq

Lessons of the past

Editor, The Times:

Iran once again has offered to assist the United States in withdrawing from Iraq, with a minimum of difficulty ["Biden, Richardson offer fresh perspectives on Iraq," syndicated column, Oct. 3]. Iran asks in return that President Bush act like a gentleman and not crow about "victory." Muqtada al-Sadr has indicated the Iranian offer has his support. The Emir of Qatar told Charlie Rose this week his country supports a non-Arab U.N. intervention in Iraq, as peacekeepers, so the United States can withdraw its military forces.

Why doesn't the Bush administration accept the Iranian offer? The rabid neocons want a permanent large-scale U.S. military presence in Iraq, "to protect Israel." Squandering hundreds of billions of dollars more — of U.S. taxpayer funds — in this folly of an intervention in Iraq will not "protect" Israel.

We must remember the millions of people killed in Southeast Asia as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger tried to obtain political cover for the civilian and military leaders whose lack of judgment took us into a folly of an intervention in a civil war. Kissinger is up to the same tricks with the Iraq War.

— James Canning, Seattle

Health care veto

Room for growth

I will quote "This president's veto deserves an override" [Editorials and Opinion, Oct. 5]: "New federal restrictions have stymied efforts to grow the program."

There you have it. Growing, growing, growing the program is what we Republicans don't like about the government philosophy of Democrats. Democrats are obsessed with growing the government and raising our taxes to pay for it. Democrats write the checks and Republicans sign them. I give thanks for our checks and balances system that includes the veto power of the president.

— Ken Clemons, Auburn

Rich is the new poor

The expansion of the state children's health insurance program has about as much to do with poor children's health as the U.S. Patriot Act has to do with patriotism. The original purpose of the program was to cover children whose parents weren't poor enough for Medicaid but not rich enough for private insurance. Under the $35 billion expansion, that purpose would be warped.

Under the expansion, children whose parents earn up to three times the poverty level would be entitled to SCHIP protection, meaning children whose parents make over $60,000 a year would receive a guaranteed entitlement. Ironically, many of those parents, if they pay home mortgage interest, will be dinged by the alternative minimum tax — a tax meant to soak only the rich.

As a result, we call people rich and use it as an excuse to raise their taxes, and then call them poor to give them government-backed health insurance. In between the two, Washington, D.C. takes its cut, and the market for health insurance shrinks, giving fewer incentives for insurers to cut costs, provide better service, offer more choices or any of the other benefits of a robust private market.

Trotting out kids to support the expansion is like trotting out the troops to support the flawed war in Iraq. Neither should sway us.

— Paul Graves, Olympia

It ain't here yet

Its very unfortunate that a large portion of the local population, including — not surprisingly — The Times feels that the president is somehow being unreasonable in vetoing SCHIP. As usual, The Times only gives part of the story and readers are no better informed.

It's important to remember that Bush was going to reauthorize the program with an increase in funds but the Democrats said it wasn't enough. The problem is, it's never enough for Democrats. And less we forget: it's not the job of the government to provide health care for anyone!

While this country is surely well on the way to socialized health care, it ain't here yet and hopefully never will be. It's a disaster in the countries that have it, that is, if one values choice and freedom. The more government does for you, the more it can do to you.

— Scott Stoppelman, La Conner, Skagit County

Bush, take some responsibility

It's ridiculous that President Bush has vetoed the SCHIP legislation. I know he wants all the money for his wars and to funnel to his corporate mercenary friends at Blackwater and elsewhere, but sometimes he actually has to take some responsibility for the nation and sign some beneficial legislation. Congress must come together again and override this veto.

— Stuart Shiffman, Seattle

Thank Bush

All the Democratic presidential candidates should thank President Bush and the Republican candidates for office who support his veto for now giving the Democrats the edge in 2008.

These are very wealthy, very selfish, very privileged white men who have no shred of decency or compassion for children, aka the next generation of Americans. But what can you expect from a candidate whose religion says that the Garden of Eden is in Missouri (former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney), or a Bush rubber stamp (Arizona Sen. John McCain)? Of course they support Bush! He's the decider! Remember Mission Accomplished? When was that exactly, because we have body bags of soldiers stacking up on a daily basis, and we don't know what to do with them.

Do you want these fools spewing Bush's rhetoric for another four years? My grandchildren will already be paying a high price for the President's wild-west tactics for the rest of their lives... and they aren't even born yet.

— Wendy Payne, Spokane

OK for candidates to lie

What would founding fathers think?

Isn't it interesting that the judges in this state consider lying a constitutional right ["Split court says candidates can lie," Local News, Oct. 5].

Freedom of speech is a right given to all citizens but I have a hard time believing that our founding fathers wanted it to include slander and lying. Being able to lie about your opponent even when you know it's false is not a right and surely is not morally or ethically correct. Do the judges really have the public interest at heart or is there something more personal in the way they decided?

This is just one more step backward as a society. How can a voter make an educated decision when he or she has to wade through lies to get to the truth? This decision marks a sad day for the state of Washington and even a sadder day for the election system that is already suspect and full of numerous other problems.

— Roger Miller, Wenatchee

Drawbridge traffic

For whom the bell tolls

I am in complete agreement with the need to reduce congestion caused by the numerous bridge operations Mike Davis describes in "The time for bascule bridges is drawing to a close" [Editorials and Opinion, Oct. 4], yet I submit there is a more economic solution that can be implemented more timely.

There is a maritime law that requires all boat traffic's use of waterways, which governs ideas such as the following, but I believe with some local political attention we may be able to serve the greater good. Lengthy lines of sometimes hundreds of cars for one boat to pass, as we see on Montlake, are no longer acceptable.

First delineate which boats cause the openings — I am fairly certain it's mostly private sailboats with masts tall enough to cause the openings — and this subset of all local boats is most likely less than 100 craft.

Presuming this is an accurate hypothesis, request all private boats with heights requiring bridge openings to register their vessel license number with the city and deposit funds into their own prepaid toll account, which is charged each time they cause a bridge opening during fee periods. A per-use debit card system can also be easily implemented for the occasional user. With a usage fee in place, where fees are charged based upon congestion — no fees before 6 a.m., nor after 8 p.m., etc., while a $200 fee is charged during congestion times — I suspect recreational boat use of the waterways by this subset would modify dramatically.

— Jim Chevigny, Seattle

It's all about priorities

So our good Gov. Christine Gregoire would like to raise the image of falling bridges and decaying infrastructure as she pushes for a mammoth transit package?

Then so will I. Because I drive at least twice every day across the rickety Evergreen Point Floating Bridge, one of the two disasters waiting to happen. It's nearing the end of its useful life; we already have to shut it down when a strong wind blows, and we've seen what a mess that makes of traffic throughout the city.

The other one, of course, is the Alaskan Way Viaduct. And what the governor doesn't seem to have noticed is that this huge package doesn't fix or repair either of those structures.

Now, mind you, I'm a typical soft-hearted Seattle liberal who's never met a levy he didn't like. I realize big things cost big money, and I'd love to be able to take a subway train to work someday. But you can only ask for huge amounts of money so many times and, right now, that "someday" takes a back seat to these much more immediate needs.

So, to Gregoire and the rest of our roads crew, I say: let's get our priorities straight. Let's settle on a plan and a way to pay for the Highway 520 Bridge and the Alaskan Way Viaduct, and then we'll see what's left. Until then, I'll be voting "no" on new transit projects.

— Ron Prichard, Seattle

Childhood obesity grows

A comfortable evil

I applaud our YMCA presidents' efforts to encourage parents to model healthy behavior for their children ["Challenge your children to make healthier choices," Editorials and Opinion, Sept. 27]. Games such as guessing how many steps it will take to get to the park can be fun and promote fitness at the same time. Unfortunately, in many neighborhoods there are no parks in walking distance. There are, however, plenty of fast food restaurants on every block.

I would like to commend Don Barbieri for asking what the future should look like in Washington ["Our lawmakers can help hatch a vibrant future for salmon," Editorials and Opinion, Sept. 4]. There must be creative new ways to both help our economy and bring back wild salmon. I do not pretend to know what that means for the dams on the Snake River, but I believe that scientists and politicians can work together for a solution.

I am also concerned about the recent article about Bristol Bay in Alaska, with its similar pending decisions regarding wild salmon ["Gigantic mine proposal tests values of Alaskans," Local News, Sept. 12]. I realize the need for precious metals; but to disturb an invaluable environment — when scientists have shown repeatedly that natural landscapes can be damaged to the point of no return — convinces me that mining should be attempted in a less vulnerable place.

— Diane Adam, Seattle