Assault and outrage

Stain of indifference will never leave town without pity

Editor, The Times:

I am the father of an Iraqi veteran. I read about the attack on two Iraqi veterans on July 31 outside Pioneer Square. I was sickened as I watched the video [on newscasts] that lasted several minutes [see "Police seek 3 alleged assailants," Times, Local News, Aug. 25].

I was not sickened because of the brutality inflicted upon two men who were down and repeatedly stomped upon while unconscious. I know there are wolves in our society who prey upon the weak, injured and disadvantaged. I know there are people who seem to be totally without redeeming value, who do not have the ability to empathize.

I was sickened because for several minutes I watched bystanders walk past and cars drive past the two men lying motionless in the street, and did nothing. I take that back; many gawked and took pictures of the men.

People walking by and cars driving by and doing nothing is immoral.

I will never visit Seattle again. Not because of the few thugs that run your streets, but because of the apathy of the citizens walking your streets.

— Cole Thompson, Laporte, Colo.

No denying

Congratulations, Seattle. You have reached the big time — you now have your own homegrown, hardcore, inner-city crime. America was horrified to see the results of an assault on two recently returned Iraq war veterans after they intervened on the behalf of two women.

Any attempt on your part in understanding or justifying this behavior will accelerate the spread of such instances. This brutal, tribal mindset comes too easily for some and is impossible to remove once a part of a community.

I finish with my condolences — you'll need them.

— Roger Weir, Chicago, Ill.

Step back from the brink

Seattle is a great city. Like all great cities, we have our positives and our negatives. Our race relations have been strained over the past few years, with profiling, police shootings and general misunderstandings.

So when an event like this foolish fight headlines the nightly news, it makes us take a step back, not forward.

These young soldiers were only out trying to enjoy life. Regardless of our views on the war, we must respect the fact that they took risks in the name of our country — a country where we are free to live life how we choose.

But when we can't even share love with our spouse without some misguided person crossing the boundary of decency, where do we stand today? I hope this doesn't damage the progress we are making.

I pray these young [suspects] are found and change their ways so we may all see a better society. I pray those young men [who were assaulted] can feel safe enough to take their wives out again.

And selfishly, I would like to see a better reflection of me.

— Michael Antonio, Covington

A better reflection

Serving our countrymen

It was truly heartening to read "Diners have sweet surprise for soldier, girlfriend" [page one, Aug. 26], about the uniformed soldier and his companion receiving a special (and unexpected) treat to dinner at Canlis restaurant.

I believe this is the kind of reception our city always has been proud to provide to our servicemen and women throughout the years. From events like Seafair to the daily recognition of the sacrifice and dedication of those who serve, Seattle has always been a place where those in uniform can feel welcome.

This story is a shining example of how even in the "liberal stronghold" of Seattle — we who have been against the Iraq war — can and do sincerely honor the warrior, if not the war.

Those who volunteer to serve their country in the United States military are agreeing to make the supreme sacrifice in answer to their country's call — and this is something to be honored by all Americans.

This does not preclude the responsibility of every American to demand from our elected and appointed leaders the highest possible standards when considering whether to send those who serve into harm's way in defense of this great nation. George W. Bush and his acolytes have grossly failed in this responsibility, and it is in honor of those who serve and have died for this country that we who speak out against this administration do so as part of our patriotic duty.

— Jeff Welch, Seattle

Understanding Pat

History on his side

The reason The Times wants [televangelist] Pat Robertson to shut up ["Shut up, Pat," editorial, Aug. 25] is because he has more guts and intelligence than anyone on your staff.

Suppose we not only whacked the idiot in Venezuela but also whacked about 50,000 Muslims who preach hatred, in a single week, in every country on Earth, and blamed it on some radical freedom army. The war would be over in the next week.

The Romans survived for a thousand years. When they faced the barbarians, they would ask politely for the group to accept their terms, which were to advance, and build their civilization. If they refused, they killed everyone involved in the rebellion, women and children included. The next group was happy to accept their terms. By this method they conquered the world and kept the Pax Romana for hundreds of years.

You might do well to listen to your elders when it comes to making a peaceful world.

— Jeremiah Ray, Clinton

Passion of the Christian

I was hurt and offended by the letters published Thursday ["Judas priest," Northwest Voices, Aug. 25]. I am a Christian, and was deeply offended and disgusted to read the attacks on my religion, and that my religion is equated to the Taliban.

I do not condone Pat Robertson's actions, but to have my religion degraded and described as a group of "crazed, extremist, religious devotees" is hurtful. If I were to write a letter to The Times in which I insinuated that all Seattle-area Muslims were in league with the Taliban and were "crazed, extremist, religious devotees," I'm fairly sure it would not make it to the letters page.

— Paul Adolphsen, Seattle

Taken out unflogged

When George Stephanopoulos wrote a Newsweek article in 1997 calling for the assassination of Saddam Hussein, I am sure The Times was outraged, wrote an editorial about it and many of its readers wrote angry letters that were immediately published. Right? Doubt it. You don't have such credibility.

— Fred Ryan, Sammamish

His truth was marching

Letter writer Blink Owen describes Pat Robertson as "a Republican who never served in the military, especially under combat conditions" ["The Lord hates a coward," Northwest Voices, Aug. 22].

In fact, Robertson did serve in the Marines during the Korean War. However, there is some debate over his role, whether his father, a U.S. senator, pulled strings to keep him out of combat, and whether his main duty was to serve as a liquor officer.

In the 1980s, he sued Congressman Pete McCloskey, who had disparaged his service record [and made the "liquor officer" claim], but Robertson dropped the suit and was ordered to pay part of McCloskey's court costs.

— Mike Harper, Seattle