Letters to the editor

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

IVINS IDEAS

Regarding Bush: Shroud of secrecy doesn't cover fears

Editor, The Times:

On Nov. 17, Molly Ivins commented about a possible withdrawal from Iraq ("If Bush bugs out, that's fine by me," Times syndicated column). She speculated that the Bush administration's change of heart might be due to "reality intruding on ideology." I agree.

President Bush's apparent ideology of "might makes right" isn't really working. He undertook this course of action without regard for the views of the American people, without regard for the international community, without regard for the actual facts, and without considering the outcome. And the outcome gets worse every day.

Were we lied to? Of course we were.

I distrust the Bush administration and I'm frightened by the direction our country is being taken. I'm appalled by the shroud of secrecy surrounding the activities of the Bush administration. Worse yet, I have no hope for the future of our country under the rule of the current administration.

We must use our power to vote for change and to vote for peace. It's a critical time to support your candidate's campaign with your time or money.
Darlene Soellner, Seattle

Reality intrudes

Molly Ivins accuses the Bush administration of lying to the public about the Iraq war, but her own recent columns contain statements of dubious veracity.

In her Oct. 27 column " 'Lies' don't quite describe the devious deceptions," Ivins alleged that "administration officials" "lied" by sending 500 "faked" letters to American newspapers "in the names of serving soldiers without their knowledge or permission."

I assume she is referring to an incident reported by the Gannett News Service. No "administration officials" were involved. A single battalion commander, acting on his own, and later rebuked by his superiors, wrote a letter about events under his command. The letter was voluntarily signed by some of his troops and sent to various hometown newspapers. Gannett's reporter interviewed several of the soldiers in question, but could not produce a single soldier who disputes the letter's contents. Exactly one soldier out of the 500 has complained that the letter was sent without his knowledge and even he agreed with the letter's contents.

In her Nov. 3 column, "PR can't gloss over the tragic reality of Iraq," Ivins claimed that Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz "is the one who promised us this war would be a 'cakewalk.' " I find no evidence that Wolfowitz or any other administration official ever made such a statement. I suspect Ivins missourced an opinion piece by former Reagan official Kenneth Adelman.

The public's interest in a serious debate about Iraq is not served by columnists who make false and misleading statements.
Stefan Sharkansky, Seattle

Source of contradiction

On evidence of weapons of mass destruction, Molly Ivins quotes Sen. Ted Kennedy saying "before the war, week after week after week, we were told lie after lie" (Oct. 27 column). On Sept. 27, 2002, Sen. Kennedy said "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

As a senator, Kennedy has access to intelligence briefings. Last year, Kennedy was convinced but now says it was a lie. Which time was he telling the truth? And Molly asks who would believe the sorry old United Nations as opposed to our very own Bush administration.

Remember this, in Baghdad the U.N. refused offers of security protection from the U.S. armed forces and removed existing street barriers. Then their compound was hit by a truck bomb killing some people. So the United Nations removed most of their people from Iraq.

And the European countries continue to say the U.N. should be in charge of rebuilding Iraq. Do we trust the U.N., which picked up and ran to rebuild Iraq? No. The United States maintained our people there and continues to invest resources. So we trust the United States, not Molly's "sorry old United Nations."
Ron Hebron, Lake Forest Park

SEDIMENTARY RECORD

A study in extinction

Reading The Times headline, "Sediments in Sound among least toxic" (Local News, Nov. 14), one might breathe a sigh of relief and conclude that our marine system here is in relatively good condition. Not so fast.

The toxic hot spots measured in your piece are the same ones that were measured and described 20 years ago when we were doing our research for "Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound." Since that time, comparatively little has been done to clean up these sediments, and yet these toxic embayments, located within estuaries, continue to contaminate the food system of our marine birds, mammals and fish.

If the illness of the Sound is to be addressed, we need much more than another study that gives us a passing grade when compared with other degraded and contaminated waterways. If we think Puget Sound is OK because it doesn't score as low as New York and Boston harbors, then we're kidding ourselves.

Can't researchers provide recommendations for action and a plan to carry them out? Would it put their funding in jeopardy? I'm hearing another echo of what I've heard since the early '80s, and from some of the same scientists. Each day, however, contamination remains, more marine wetlands and shoreline are developed and the populations of many of the Sound's unique species continue to decline. At this rate, there's a good possibility we may just study Puget Sound to its death.
Tony Angell, author/artist, Seattle

NETWORKS OF CONSPIRACY

The truth is out there?

I would like to thank the people who pressured CBS not to air the mini-series "The Reagans." I did not need to be reminded of an administration that espoused the beliefs that trees cause pollution and that one could survive a nuclear attack just fine if he simply dug a shallow hole and crawled in.

But why didn't these same people rescue us from the TV movie, "Saving Jessica Lynch," (when Lynch) herself said (it) "... it wasn't the truth"?
Rich Lauron, Everett

Copyright © 2003 The Seattle Times Company