Letters to the Editor

Presidential speech

Is Iraq not enough for blow-'em-up Bush? Iran seems likely target

Editor, The Times:

After President Bush's speech about Iraq Wednesday night, I listened to his right-wing surrogates from the American Enterprise Institute and the Foreign Policy Institute explain to the public what we can expect in the future.

It is transparent that the president and his surrogates are seeking a wider war. Iran and Syria — primarily Iran — are clearly in the crosshairs of this delusional president. In his speech, Bush stated that those supporting the Iraq insurgency (which becomes immediately open to interpretation) will be pursued and destroyed.

His surrogates, in NPR radio interviews following the speech, took pains to talk more about Iran than Iraq in "explaining" what we can expect in the future.

It should be noted that Bush has named a naval commander from the Pacific Fleet to take over the guidance of the war in Iraq — but the war in Iraq is a ground war. It is hard to see how a Navy admiral could effectively direct a ground war, but one can most certainly direct massive bombing of Iran from two aircraft carriers now off its coast.

I fear that Bush is rapidly moving toward a world war with nuclear weapons. He sees a wider war leading to a wider "victory." This is pure madness. Is there any power in this nation to stop him and bring rationality back into our government?

— Bruce Barnbaum, Granite Falls

When Bush leaves office, mission accomplished

"Mr. President: Mission Accomplished," the banner read, as you swaggered across the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in your flight suit on May 1, 2003.

History will judge you, Mr. President, as being by far the worst, most incompetent failure to ever occupy the office. You took international goodwill after Sept. 11, and, instead of relentlessly tracking down the perpetrators of that heinous act, squandered it on an illegal war.

Your war was a war of choice, for there was no imminent threat. It is clearer now, even than it was then, that the choice you made was wrong. The blood of thousands is on your incompetent, arrogant hands.

Our nation is less safe because of your war and lack of action to secure America. My children are less safe because of you, and God will judge you for your cavalier lack of respect for the rule of law and human life.

The conceit of George W. Bush, the rich frat boy who evaded service in Vietnam through daddy's connections, then did not even fulfill his duty in the Air National Guard. This is what the Supreme Court gave us as commander in chief in 2000, an ineffectual coward who has thrown the brave men and women of our military into this unnecessary war.

When last I wrote, just before the 2004 election, I stated that if Bush won re-election, God (had better) bless America. That is still my hope.

— Eric Englund, Federal Way

The boy who cried war

It was appropriate that President Bush's speech was staged in a library. It reminded me of such children's stories as "My Pet Goat," "Humpty Dumpty" and "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf."

I also noticed Bush's "Out of Iraq surge" mouthing was out of sync with the ventriloquist's timing. Tell me, who was working the strings?

— Noel Freedman, Stanwood

School meals

Scathing words get writer sent to bed without his supper

Regarding Bruce Ramsey's column, "School meal is poor substitute for home-cooked involvement" [opinion, Jan. 10], I always wondered what happened to playground bullies when they grow up. Now I know: They become conservative pundits. Nice to see yet another conservative beating up on the poor and their children. Sock it to them, Mr. Ramsey! Not only are they hungry, now they are chastised too!

It's a no-brainer that parents should take care of their children and feed them at home and be attentive and involved. But do you ever ask yourself how people got to be poor in the first place?

How do you propose changing this distasteful social phenomenon of too many lazy, no-good parents if you don't educate these kids and provide them with a way to pull themselves out of this difficult situation? And how can you educate a child if he or she is distracted by hunger?

Shame on you, Mr. Ramsey. If you were my child, I'd send you to bed without supper.

— Gerald Gregory, Seattle

Wide-range of families welcome a little help

Bruce Ramsey suggests that school lunch and breakfast, along with most other support for low-income families, decrease parental control and involvement. In illustrating his column with his own 1960s school experiences, he restricts the need for school meals to extremely neglectful parents and chides the Children's Alliance for pursuing strategies that have provided 214,000 more nutritious breakfasts to low-income children this fall than in fall 2006.

The real story on why we support state investment in school meals is that a wide range of families have children who attend public school in Washington. Low-income parents, often balancing more than one low-wage job with family responsibilities, welcome help from school meals.

When the Seattle School District began offering free breakfast and lunch to all low-income children this fall, at least one parent broke down in tears of relief.

Ramsey missed the point — let's not let our children miss the boat. Support free meals for all low-income children.

— Linda Stone, Eastern Washington director, Children's Alliance, Spokane

Winter wonderland?

The weather outside really not that frightful

Can I ask the local media to please stop calling snowfall a "winter storm?" ["Not in the clear yet," page one, Jan. 10]. I realize that the city of Seattle has a poor track record preparing for such events, but just because a few snowflakes cause the whole system to come crashing down doesn't mean we can't get a little perspective.

I'm originally from Buffalo, N.Y., which has been dug out of blizzards by the National Guard more times than I can count. Buffalonians would choke on their chicken wings from laughter watching the news and reading the papers in Seattle, which seem to delight in scaring the population with the light dusting of snow on the side of the road.

— Ben Hopper, Seattle

At least city was ready ... for snow that never came

Our recent over-hyped Seattle snow fizzle was really funny. I have never seen the weather wonks so worked up. The media was issuing "computer model" snow warnings for Wednesday during the whole of the past seven days. And what snow did we get? About 1/16 an inch of — none which stuck to the roads in or near Seattle.

There was another good thing here: The greatly updated and improved snow response by the city of Seattle and King County. Most freeways, highways and major roads were de-iced and sanded.

In Seattle, traffic signals on major uphill thoroughfares were set to blinking yellow to allow the main traffic to proceed up the hill unhindered.

Even though this snow fizzle was a laugher, it was good to see that the city and county learned valuable lessons from the December fiasco.

— Matt Andrews, Seattle