Letters to the editor

Tactical retread

Spin increases traction for a Trojan horse

Editor, The Times:

George Bush must be a lucky man. Although the decision to go to war in Iraq was based on faulty intelligence, he now claims it was still the right thing to do. What a happy coincidence. ["Bush accepts responsibility for decision to go to war based on faulty intelligence," Times, News, Dec. 13.]

I wish I could be so lucky. If so, I could:

• Take a wrong turn while driving and still reach my destination;

• Put the wrong ingredients into a recipe and still get a delicious meal; or

• Invest my money in the wrong stocks and still become a millionaire!

Or, maybe not. More likely, I would be lost, the meal a disaster, and my stocks worthless.

In reality, maybe the president isn't so lucky either. He may claim that he can bumble around like the Keystone Kops and still develop a respectable foreign policy, but I doubt it.

— Joe Sullivan, Kirkland

Course corrections

Of all the harbors to navigate, this one was the shallowest

President Bush finally admitted the reasons cited for the invasion of Iraq were false and misinterpreted by him and his staff. This is the first time he has admitted any wrong — remember the [presidential] debates?

He is also trying to justify the war on the premise that Saddam Hussein was involved in the oil-for-money scandal, but if this were a good reason to invade, why is the U.N. still standing? Some of its leaders were also involved and indicted.

Granted, Saddam was a brutal dictator, but why aren't we invading the other hundreds of countries run by brutal dictators? Lest we forget, the original intention of the invasion of Afghanistan was to rid it of the Taliban and derail the al-Qaida movement. None of that has happened, as our president invaded a country for no good reason and did the unthinkable as a commander in chief: He split the forces and lost sight of the real objective.

— James Dunn, Marysville

Achilles' deal

The president said "30,000 Iraqis more or less have died." ["Bush says 30,000 Iraqis have died in war," News, Dec. 12.] The White House later said that isn't the "official" number. "What is the official number," the press asked. "We don't keep track of that sorta thing," responds the White House spokesman.

The numbers of civilians killed in Iraq go as high as more than 100,000. But the White House doesn't keep track?

Remember the "Pottery Barn Rule"? You broke it, you own it! The White House is responsible for Iraq and needs to keep track of this.

— Alina Skelly, Bremerton

Sirens' wrong

I'm baffled by the mainstream media's relentlessly negative reporting on Iraq. The preference for bad news is so marked, it amounts to a gigantic lie. Soldiers constantly complain about it. Even journalists regularly report that what they find when they arrive in Iraq is not what the news led them to expect.

The latest is a reporter from the Fairbanks, Alaska, Daily News-Miner, embedded with the 172nd Stryker Brigade. She just arrived and wrote, "Everything I thought I knew was wrong" (according to www.pajamasmedia.com).

Democratic Party politicians misrepresent the situation for partisan political reasons, and most mainstream reporters and editors are also Democrats. Despite claims that they avoid bias, the results argue otherwise.

The journalism of affirmation for liberal readers could be a factor. Telling people what they want to hear is popular. A belief that being anti-establishment and cynical equals sophistication might also be at work.

Whatever the reason, such journalism has unquestionably misled the public and helped the terrorists.

— Ed Davis, Issaquah

The POTUS meter

Recently, I called the White House Comment Line (202-456-1414). When connected, I heard a kindly, somewhat elderly voice ask me "Now what message would you like me to pass on to the president today?"

I responded that I just wished that he and those around him would just stop their lying.

There was a slight pause and then I heard the following, which both startled and amused me: "Now, which of the president's lies in particular bothers you the most?"

— Richard Hodgin, Seattle

Dogs of war

Omega manifesto

The terrorists we confront are not insurgents, freedom fighters or future prisoners of war. They are not armed forces, militias or volunteer corps of any authority or country. These killers are not members of an organized resistance movement carrying arms openly. They fail to meet even minimum standards of a spy or saboteur for protected-person status.

The president has prejudiced national security to accord these butchers treatment under the Geneva conventions ["White House, McCain, agree on torture policy," News, Dec. 15].

Apparently, few are concerned that we face a determined, creative enemy, who will use increasing skills in biological, nuclear and chemical technologies to sow catastrophes so damaging that 9/11 becomes a dimly remembered tragedy.

We cannot treat the war on terror as a political inconvenience juxtaposed against initiatives dependent upon a world of complacency, serenity and belligerent self-absorption. Interrogators need the range of techniques applied to our own military in survival school.

We cannot await the type of attack envisioned by our implacable enemy for supporters of the McCain amendment to become irrelevant.

— Nolan Nelson, Eugene, Ore.

Alpha failure

If we, the American people, think we must torture to protect this country, then this country no longer deserves protection.

— Norman Marsh, Everett

Islam's roots

Few follow offshoots

While I respect Asra Nomani's right to express her views on Islamic feminism, I beg to differ with her in her understanding of Islam ["Tapping Islam's feminist roots," guest commentary, Dec. 11].

Her statement that Islamic jurisprudence as practiced by Muslims is based on laws created by eight men is overly simplistic and akin to attributing modern Christian theology to one man (Paul).

While anyone can stake any claim about Islam, its validity is best judged by its acceptance by the mainstream Muslim community throughout its history. You will find such theories [as Nomani's] do not have acceptance beyond a minuscule minority.

Sadly, some of Ms. Nomani's observations about Muslim women's rights have more to do with culture than religion. She needs to look no further than women on the Indian subcontinent. What she attributes to Muslim women is equally true for Hindu or Christian women.

This is not to say all is well with Islam as it is practiced by Muslims today. American Muslims strive to get better every day through better understanding of their own faith.

— Hyder Ali, Issaquah

Normalizing behavior

Side effects will abate

In Dec. 11 Northwest Voices responses to "Legalize drugs — all of them" [guest commentary, Dec. 4], one reader opposes regulated legalization of drugs because "having lived across the street from a drug house for 15 years," [she] endured "dangerous traffic and noise at all hours, loose pit bulls, fights, garbage strewn all over, syringes and condoms... " ["Uncontrolled substance: Complacency is so rampant, you can't just say go."]

"The compulsive need for drugs," writes another, "is the driving force behind... street crimes, such as mugging or purse theft." Also: "Too many [police officers]... have given their lives to allow [legalization] to even be considered." ["Tracks everywhere."]

A retired employee of the Drug Enforcement Administration writes of a couple "who lost their home, jobs and their 'Baby M' to Washington Child Protective Services due primarily to drug use, particularly methamphetamine." ["Unsafe at any speed."]

What do these conditions and events have in common? The substances implicated were then, and are now, illegal.

If drugs were legal, strictly controlled and regulated by the government, there would have been no "drug house" across the street from your reader's home. The number of predatory street crimes cited by the second reader? Dramatically reduced under controlled legalization. The job of a police officer? Much safer. And those in need of help? Far more likely to seek it — absent the stigma attached to illicit drug use.

— Norm Stamper, East Sound

Of mice and men

Which one gives a rodent class?

"Human brain cells working in mice" [page one, Dec. 13] gave me grounds for great optimism. What an exciting reversal, after thousands of years of mouse brain cells working in humans.

— Joe Asher, Seattle