Letters to the editor

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

INVESTIGATING TERROR

Team Bush less than candid with fellow Americans

Editor, The Times:

"Opening White House doors to 9-11 query" (Times editorial, April 1) concludes that George W. Bush's reversal of course, allowing National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify under oath to the 9-11 commission, was the right decision. In the same edition, David Broder laments just the opposite ("Bush wrong to give up Rice," syndicated column).

While reasonable people can disagree on this issue, one thing seems abundantly clear: the Bush administration has been, and continues to be, less than forthcoming with the American public.

As Broder points out, Bush could have demonstrated true leadership by taking responsibility and facilitating the commission in its fact-finding mission. However, only extreme public pressure has forced Bush to allow Rice to testify. Bush himself refuses to talk to the commission under oath, and insists upon having Vice President Dick Cheney present to provide cover.

Whether the issue is 9-11, the Iraq invasion, or energy policy, Team Bush has festooned itself in a veil of secrecy. This administration demonstrates an aversion to public disclosure and a fondness for evasion and distraction. Americans deserve better.
Laurence Wechsler, Seattle

The past looks dark

Nothing could have been a better metaphor for the current situation of the Bush administration than the president dashing from the room in full retreat from the shouted questions of the reporters after the 180-degree reversal of his "principled" stand regarding testimony before the 9-11 commission by Condoleezza Rice ("9-11 panel to quiz Rice publicly about terror policy," page one, March 31).

Now Rice will testify under oath and in public and we will witness the beginning of the end of the Bush administration.

If the commission does its job correctly, they will ask her to explain her statement of May 16, 2002, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile," and reconcile that with the president's security briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the U.S., and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane.

The arrogance of Rice and the neo-con cabal is only outdone by their incompetence.
John Ariel Murphy, Seattle

The kid strays in the picture

It seems the president will not testify before the 9-11 commission without Vice President Cheney by his side. Here is confirmation that this president, while an amiable man who looks good on TV and can read simple speeches, is in fact a childlike pawn being managed by a group of hard-bitten Republican political operatives and oilmen. Clearly, they are concerned that, left to himself, he will appear uninformed or will blunder and say something embarrassing or devastating to the administration; and, clearly, they feel that an adult must be present to guide him.
Robert Rosenberg, Seattle

No swearing in public

So Bush and Cheney will testify, but in secrecy and not under oath. What does that tell you?
Betty Fulton, Seattle

UNTHINKABLE MOLLY

Seriously mistaken

Molly, take your Bush-hatred blinders off. How can you say that the difference between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration on fighting terrorism is that Clinton took it seriously? ("Thanks, Richard Clarke, the nation needed that" Molly Ivins, syndicated column, March 29.)

Uh! What? Clinton thought treating terrorism was a law-enforcement issue, not a military issue. He launched missiles here and there to make it seem as if we were doing something and it didn't work.

There was the 1993 World Trade Center explosion, the attack on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole attack and others. He responded with assorted attacks that killed many but didn't solve the problem. In fact, many intelligence officials suggest that most of 9-11 hijackers were already here before George Bush took office.

Also, for you other lefties acting like Dick Clarke is some angel of truth, consider this. For you to believe Clarke, you have to believe that Bush knew about 9-11, let it happen, and is now voraciously fighting terrorism for political gain. Likely? Give me a break.

Since the administration let Clarke go after 9-11, he had reason to "get back" at them. White House reports confirm that Clarke showed little interest in attending meetings he should have, and that the claims in his book ("Against All Enemies") are not only flat-out lies, they're a 180-degree change from the things he said before.

Talk about propaganda.
Tom Walker, Edmonds

IF YOU BUILD IT

They will swarm

Re: "Ballfield plan finds objectors across the lake" (Local News, March 23): Kudos to Rob Horwitz for his activism on behalf of residents on both sides of Lake Washington who oppose the megasports-complex that the Parks Department would like to build in Magnuson Park.

The proposed complex will create the largest concentration of lighted fields by far in the Puget Sound region. It will become the premier site for adult tournament play, and will attract teams from near and far. This will turn Magnuson Park from a scenic waterfront haven for both humans and wildlife into a bustling sports complex with an adjacent beach. Boaters and picnickers will compete with players and spectators during busy summer months, jamming the two access points to Sandpoint Way, and turning leisure outings into nightmares.

Predictions and extrapolations by fields supporters that suggest minimal impacts of lighting and additional traffic are not well-founded, since there does not exist a comparable facility anywhere in the Puget Sound region.

As Horwitz points out, this project should concern the whole region, because it is a test of whether residents who want to preserve the way of life that makes Seattle so livable will be allowed to have their voices heard.
Ruth Etzioni, Seattle

Bright lights, big tizzy

Well, Seattle, I think I've heard it all now. Since moving to the Pacific Northwest five years ago, I have listened to the anti-Sound Transit protesters, the anti-third-runway protesters, the anti-monorail protesters, and the anti-Sammamish Trail protesters. But this latest one really tops them all: Homeowners two-and-a-half miles across Lake Washington are protesting the plan to build ballfields in Magnuson Park because they might see light coming from across the lake. A position supported by people who'll apparently oppose anything that keeps us from seeing — you just can't believe this — the stars. (In Seattle! Stars! Will they sue God for making clouds?)

Wake up, folks. You don't live in a little town anymore. Seattle is a large, vibrant community that is growing and evolving. If the "anti anythings" want to preserve their romantic small-town notions and personal views, I suggest taking a look at one of those giant, vacant states to our East.
Logan Downing, Seattle

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company