"It's time to change the course."

Misdirecting the war

Vetoing the pullout: another decision in conflict with Americans

Editor, The Times:

With the stroke of a veto pen, President Bush turned his back on both the American troops and the will of the American people Tuesday. He did so by refusing to admit defeat and bring our soldiers home. ["After veto, a hunt for middle ground," Times page one, May 2].

President Bush's war in Iraq was sold on lies because Americans are reluctant to use force unless there's an absolute need for it. We had neither the need nor the right to invade and occupy Iraq, and more than 3,000 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have paid the highest price for the president's illegal occupation of Iraq. We are now trapped in a civil war in a distant land, with no end in sight.

It's time to change the course. That starts by returning American troops home before our continued presence in Iraq makes matters even worse.

President Bush is not alone in blame or responsibility for the tragic outcome of the occupation of Iraq. The Democrats who refused to stand up to the president's lies and who stood by when the war was before Congress share in Bush's blame. Thankfully, the Democrats are facing their mistake head-on, and are doing what's required to correct it.

Just because we made a mistake does not require that we continue it.

I pray the Democrats hold their ground by refusing another penny for Bush's war until there's a firm plan to do the right thing and bring our troops home.

— Tom Kertes, Seattle

L.A. Qaida

Many Democrats and the media are deriding the president on the fourth anniversary of his so-called "Mission Accomplished" speech. They point out that our efforts in Iraq have taken longer than it took to defeat Germany and Japan, and are insisting Bush accept dates for bringing the troops home, in order to get funding [for the front lines].

The reality is that the terrorists declared war on the U.S. long before President Bush was elected, and it will go on a long time after a new president is inaugurated. The only question is, where are we going to fight them? On the streets of Baghdad, or Los Angeles?

Murders in California, largely committed by gangs, outnumber by a factor of nearly four our soldiers killed in Iraq since the war began. Street-gang violence is nothing compared with the mayhem that Americans would face from radical terrorists. The potential dangers from bomb-laden cars, explosives left wherever they could do the most damage, and suicidal terrorists with their deadly explosive vests, would change our way of life forever.

Ten-thousand terrorists went through training camps in Afghanistan during the '90s. This number would be dwarfed by the numbers that could be trained in Iraq if we fail there. The terrorists have vowed to follow us here if we retreat and they will have the billions from oil money to finance whichever attacks they may choose.

Democrats' pronouncements that they would not allow this to happen are not particularly comforting.

— Bill Hirt, Bellevue

The roof via powder keg

I have a great deal of concern about a timetable for removing our troops from Iraq. I recall the desperation and chaos at the American Embassy in Saigon in 1975, when the last few Marines were airlifted off the rooftop. I believe setting a date for withdrawal gives the extremists time to funnel all their resources into a feeding frenzy as the number of troops decrease.

I'm also concerned that the death toll for servicemen and civilians could rise past that of the present date. I wouldn't want to be one of the last 20,000 or fewer brave souls left during the final days of a massive pullout, or among the civilians who would be killed with U.S. air cover shielding our men.

Also after a withdrawal, I can foresee the countless Iraqi citizens who would be killed by extremists and possibly again being subjected to a theocracy or totalitarian regime.

I would hate to see the whole madness go full circle and again have to go back in.

— Charles McIntosh, Renton

Places to go in Seattle

Good SAM rehab

As one who has visited many of the world's great art museums, I was blown away by SAM — the newly reopened Seattle Art Museum. It is stunning. It is engaging. Its exhibits are elegant and memorable. It is worth a journey! ["The new SAM reviewed," Northwest Life, May 2.]

A proud graduate of Lincoln High, I returned home to Seattle two years ago after spending some 40 years back East in the "other Washington."

As I wandered through the exhibit halls, I felt I could have been in New York, Paris, or Tokyo — world-class cities whose residents treasure great art.

Kudos to SAM and to all whose contributions have made it a smashing success.

— Candace Sullivan, Seattle

Where the tonic is free

Reader Duane Hansen ["Local landmarks: Tavern off the green," Northwest Voices, May 2] would be right on the mark if the purpose of St. Edward State Park were to provide paid public access to a fine old building. But this is not the purpose of the park. It was not the purpose of the Archdiocese of Seattle in making the land available to the state below the development price, nor of the National Park Service in making funds available, nor of the political leaders who worked to acquire the park. It is not the purpose of the thousands of regular users of the park.

The purpose is outdoor recreation in a pristine natural setting within a dense urban area. This is recreation for all the public, not just the paying public.

No one I know denies that McMenamins does a good job with its buildings, but a tavern-hotel complex at the scale required to turn the necessary investment into a profit would degrade the qualities of the park for safe recreation — recreation that literally re-creates body, mind and spirit.

— Conway Leovy, Kenmore

Anywhere just to hang

In response to Betty Jones' inquiry as to whether or not the smokers downtown could go somewhere else to do our business ["Local landmarks: Tobacco goad," Northwest Voices, May 1]: No.

If you'll take a moment, you'll remember you kicked us out onto the street. Now you're complaining that we're on the street. Alrighty. How 'bout this: Start an initiative to force businesses (since it appears you believe it is the businesses' job to provide us with the space you took away) to spend $X to put a "smoking room" on each corner. Oh, wait, we can't smoke indoors in public anymore. Yeah. Sorry.

OK, how about developing anti-gravity boots so we can hover above the sidewalks and out of the way of your lungs (you can deal with car exhaust on your own)? Sound good? Excellent, because I've always wanted to hover.

— Derek Einhaus, Seattle