Letters to the editor

Literary matters

There's something about this White House — and now it's in print

Editor, The Times:

Former Press Secretary Scott McClellan has written a tell-all book about the Bush administration ["Ex-aide says Bush misled the U.S. on war," Times, News, May 28]. Now, Dan Barlett and Dana Perino are rallying around their wagons to make excuses for the president. What else would you expect?

In essence, and in plain terms, McClelland asserts that Bush used the necessary propaganda to lie to the American people to justify the invasion of Iraq. He also rails on Bush for the administration's complete stupidity and irresponsibility in its handling of Hurricane Katrina — we all know about Michael Brown.

But, the most fascinating passage deals with his overhearing of a conversation Bush had involving his alleged use of cocaine. This issue does not surprise me; for some time, I have been concerned with Bush's slurring of words, in his prepared speeches or news conferences.

There is something terribly wrong in this White House. I sincerely pray that the nation can get through the rest of this year without Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney going ballistic and out of control on any international issue, which would be deleterious to the national security and vital economic interests of the United States.

— Earl Beal, Terre Haute, Ind.

If it looks like a duck ...

OK, Bush supporters, this time it isn't a "liberal whacko" saying it. It's from a longtime Bush friend and loyalist who finally got a conscience. Straight from former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan: President Bush lied to the people to sell this tragic war in Iraq. It has always been obvious to the majority; now even you have to open your eyes.

So where does this leave us? Let's see ... President Clinton lied about sex, and was impeached. Bush lied about Iraq. You know the process. It's time to force the issue.

Let's see what kind of true Americans are out there now.

— David McKenzie, Federal Way

Texas-sized tsunami headed for Washington

I don't know if Scott McClellan is right or wrong about the run-up to the war in Iraq ["Bush backers deluge ex-aide McClellan with scorn," News, May 29]. What I do know is this: Considering the reaction Bush administration insiders have had to McClellan's assertions, there must be truth to his story.

If so, the public's response to "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception" may turn into a tsunami of voter resentment against the Republican Party this fall.

— A.L. Cynton, Laguna Beach, Calif.

Matters of McCain

A picture's worth ...

How is it that someone was able to smuggle a camera into Saddam Hussein's execution, but for some reason, at a recent campaign fundraiser in Arizona, John McCain was able to prevent any photos being taken of him together with President Bush? ["Bush stays low-profile at McCain event," News, May 28.]

What's worse to see: a man's execution by hanging, or Bush and McCain chumming it up?

— Ron Dickson, Seattle

Media won't surrender to reality, apparently

Over the car radio came John McCain's retort to anti-war hecklers at his May 27 speech in Denver: "I will never surrender in Iraq," he repeated twice. I was elated — what a gaff. Poll after poll shows a vast majority of Americans are opposed to this Vietnam-like quagmire in which we are entangled in Iraq.

I could just envision anti-McCain advertisements playing that quote over and over before the election. McCain himself hammered the final nail into his political coffin.

[Wednesday], looking for reactions in the media, I could not believe it. To my disbelief, what little mainstream media commentary there was echoed Frank James of the Chicago Tribune: "Sometimes heckling does more for the heckled than the hecklers."

Are the media really so out of touch with reality? This debacle in Iraq is hugely unpopular, and if some aging, out-of-touch candidate is desperately clinging to the "war and more war rhetoric," then so be it, and good riddance to him.

But at least the media could point out that a major candidate is barking up a tree that 75 percent of Americans feel is wrong.

— Branko Kukolja, Seattle

Drug-related matters

Mops and buckets won't clean this mess up

I'm writing about Neal Peirce's thoughtful column: "Mexican drugs: a smarter approach" [Opinion, May 27]. The violence in Mexico is caused by the United States' broken pipe of drug prohibition.

If a broken water pipe floods your house, the solution is not to get more mops and buckets, but rather to shut the water off and fix the broken pipe.

We have been fighting drugs and the violence caused by their prohibition with mops and buckets for more than 40 years. It's time to fix the broken pipe by re-legalizing currently illegal drugs. The drugs can be sold in licensed, regulated and taxed businesses for pennies per dose. Then the term "drug-related crime" will become obsolete.

Law enforcement didn't get rid of the alcohol cartels; ending alcohol prohibition did.

— Kirk Muse, Mesa, Ariz.

A matter of priorities

We must feed people — and not from KeyArena's concessions stand, either

The front page of the May 27 issue of The Seattle Times talked about the lack of food at local food banks and the increasing population in need of a meal ["Food banks squeezed by prices, demand"]. On May 30, there was another story about the fight to keep the Sonics ["City says Bennet's sincerity no longer a key issue"].

I ask: How can the city, state and county spend one dime on keeping a basketball team made up of millionaires while the common people go hungry? Take a look at this society, which pays Kevin Durant, a young college dropout, millions of dollars to put a basketball through a hoop.

There are sick and hungry people in our cities; the Gates Foundation need only to look out from its mansion and help people close to home.

— Barry Gobatie, Kirkland

In national matters ...

In plain English: No logic present

What could this federal government be thinking? Unless I am wrong, the prevailing language of this country of ours was decided upon a very long time ago, and that language was English! Now, a couple of hundred years later, we're suddenly obliged to make costly accommodations for anyone unwilling, too lazy or too disinterested to learn English? There isn't a shred of logic to this type of order.

No one that I know of is interested in denying newcomers their right to maintain and pass on their cultural heritage, but enabling them to live in an English-speaking country without being willing to become efficient in the use of said country's common language is inexcusable.

Lest you get the wrong impression, I am not possessed of a warped sense of patriotism that would cause me to hold this opinion; I happen to be a "naturalized" American citizen, who is rather proud of the fact that I speak, read and, as you can see, write and spell in English, without having lost a beat in my native tongue in 50-plus years.

— Ruth R. Quiban, Seattle