Letters to the Editor

Affirmative action for the well connected
April 25, 2004
I WONDER if the people who are questioning whether John Kerry really earned his Purple Hearts will apply the same litmus test to George W. Bush ("Kerry faces questions over Purple Heart," Page A1, April 14). I question whether anyone who admits to being lazy and deplores reading, has a poor command of the English language, lacks an understanding of
science, history, world affairs, economics, other religions and cultures, and was an alcoholic, could possibly have earned a degree from Yale University, let alone read, understood, and written about the case studies that are the basis of a Harvard Business School MBA degree.
Is it possible that George W. Bush's university degrees were earned the same way that he completed his National Guard service? Did his daddy's money and powerful connections help son George get his degrees without completing the requirements that are expected of those who are not well-connected?
[size=7]JUDY KAPLAN
Lynn[/size]

Clarke, Woodward may be on to something
April 25, 2004
LAST SUNDAY I watched a "60 Minutes" segment featuring reporter Bob Woodward talking about the president. I also recently watched another "60 Minutes" program featuring Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism specialist in the White House. Sure, sure, they are selling books. Yet both men seem to be on to something.
I think not much has changed since the 1970s. After all, we are still screaming about high gas prices. And many of our cars are gas guzzlers.
Woodward mentions the president's connections to the Saudi ambassador. Could all this talk about war for oil, Halliburton, Saudi connections, etc., be true? It appears that President Bush has some type of deal with his buddies the Saudis who are willing to adjust oil production to lower prices just before our upcoming election. Is asking the Saudis to increase oil production to influence our presidential election a bigger offense than the GOP bugging a Democratic Party office?
When are we going to stand up and say we are sick of this and we are not taking it anymore? I am writing to judges who are deciding sentences for persons convicted of Wall Street-related crimes. I am writing to my congressman, my senator, my president to let them know what I think, and it's not easy, especially when I'm tired after a long day of work. I think people in the Middle East and other parts of the world think we are morons. After all, we just seem to keep repeating the same dumb mistakes.[/size]
[size=7]MICHAEL AMARAL
Waltham[/size]

Guantanamo detainees must be protected by US laws
April 25, 2004
LAST WEEK THE US Supreme Court heard arguments on a legal conundrum with substantial implications, and its answer to the questions will set standards that we should all watch closely. More than 600 prisoners from dozens of countries are held by this country outside our borders, denying them the protections of the 14th Amendment. Federal
authorities would deny them all constitutional rights despite holding them within US control.
The legal conundrum arises in past and future claims of US sovereignty on those and other military bases, embassies, or other facilities worldwide. If the Supreme Court rules that these foreigners are not protected by the US Constitution and the laws based upon it despite being within the physical boundaries of US control, then any person will have legitimate claims to invoke local law against US nationals even for acts committed on those facilities within our control. This will include our soldiers and other citizens within Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as every other country.
Not so long ago the Supreme Court ruled that US citizens living in the District of Columbia did not enjoy the protections of the 14th Amendment because that amendment specifically invoked its protections against state action. However, the justices also wisely recognized that it was unreasonable to conclude that the 5th Amendment, which lacked the specific language of the 14th, did not also provide the same due process and equal protection to citizens of the District of Columbia as the 14th did to all persons within the states. Their ruling thus forbade racial discrimination and segregation in Washington, D.C. and the territories just as it had been forbidden in the states of this nation.
I hope the justices will again show this wisdom and find that any person under the control of US officials enjoys the basic civil rights that all Americans have come to expect, but all too often also find neglected. To set a lower standard would not just reflect badly on this nation and its lofty ideals, but would also eventually be used to degrade the rights of American citizens as well.
[size=7]RANDALL HOFLAND
Plymouth Rights Foundation
Stockton Springs, Maine[/size]

Health care and economy have been ignored
April 25, 2004
THE ASSERTIONS in Bob Woodward's new book only confirm what many people suspected about the Bush administration's rush to war as their main objective. The health care system and the domestic economy are largely ignored by the administration. The drug companies and a well known big firm, formerly directed by Vice President Dick Cheney, prosper while the middle class languishes and our young people die in Iraq.
Send Bush back to Texas, and bring the troops home from war.
[size=7]FRANK RIPLEY
Beverly Hill, Fla.[/size]

Who are they to question patriotism?
April 23, 2004
ALTHOUGH IT'S understandable that the Bush people have to resort to smears and stunts as their unnecessary war worsens, I'm still amazed that they are taking on John Kerry's service record ("Kerry to release records," Page A3, April 21). It has to be better than Bush's.
Many Republican leaders, such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, couldn't be bothered to serve in the military themselves, yet they constantly question the patriotism of combat veterans like Al Gore, John Kerry, and Max Cleland, not to mention wasting the lives of currently serving military personnel.
How do they get away with representing themselves as the real patriots?[/size]
[size=7]KATHLEEN MARTIN
Chelmsford [/size]

Turning off the death switch
April 23, 2004
WHAT MOTHER would want to know that her loving son is "working" in Iraq as the sniper described in the article "For Marine snipers, war is up close and personal" (Page A10, April 19)? The words of one Marine -- "I'll let him scream a bit to destroy the morale of his buddies, then I'll use a second shot" -- probably describe the game plan of war, but that doesn't make it less painful to read as one human being deliberately kills another
mother's child.
A US reporter, Rahul Mahajan, estimates that of the 600 killed in Fallujah, 200 were women and 100 were young children. Imagine pulling the trigger (even mistakenly) with a woman or child in the cross hairs. A young man could probably do that with lots of training and not worry about it. But later, as that young man returns to civilian life, he is expected to shut off the switch of death, marry, and love and cherish his wife and children. All without any flashbacks. Isn't that asking a lot?
[size=7]JOSEPH TOWLE
East Walpole [/size]

Bush, Saddam, and the big picture
April 22, 2004
"THE WORLD is better off without Saddam Hussein." That's one of George W. Bush's favorite sayings, and he said it again at his press conference on April 13. And there aren't many people who would argue with that narrow polemic.
But it is important to keep that point in context. Are we better off without the 600-plus Americans who have died in Iraq? Are we better off with the continuing American deaths and injuries there? Are we better off without the $1 billion we pour into Iraq every week? Could any of that money be used for American needs?
Are we better off with an invigorated terrorist movement in Iraq and in other parts of the world? And at a time when we need all the help we can get to defend ourselves against terrorism, are we better off with less respect and support from the rest of the world?
[size=7]DOUG LONG
Rio Rancho, N.M. [/size]

Why should Iraqis feel gratitude?
April 22, 2004
UNLIKE Joan Vennochi (op ed, April 15), I don't expect Iraqis to feel grateful to the United States for overthrowing Saddam Hussein and can well understand why they are rising up. Is there anyone who truly believes that the US invasion was a humanitarian mission to free the Iraqis from tyranny? It was about our freedom: freedom from terrorism and free access to Iraqi oil and to operate freely in the Middle East. With such self-serving motives, dishonestly portrayed as responding to a "gathering threat" in President Bush's words, it's no wonder we are encountering resistance and lack of gratitude.
Even the so-called transfer of sovereignty isn't about helping Iraq transition to democracy: The United States retains control over key areas such as rebuilding Iraq's core infrastructure and will run the show from a huge embassy and military bases. When the US changes its policies to truly benefit the Iraqi people, perhaps their attitude will change.
[size=7]ELAINE GOTTLIEB
Cambridge [/size]

Dubious rationale for Sharon deal
April 21, 2004
MEIR SHLOMO extols the initiative of Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ("Israel's step for peace," op ed, April 17). Sharon's strategy is designed to exit Gaza, which holds little strategic or economic interest for Israel. The objective of the Sharon government is the removal of as many Palestinians as possible from the coveted West Bank.
Sharon's policy is driven by a claim for the West Bank often justified by Biblical texts. That is similar to Greece claiming parts of Turkey on the texts of the Iliad. Both peoples have legitimate claims for the land. While a magnificent spiritual work, the Bible is not a land contract.
Also, Meir, the Israeli consul general in New England, presents the conflict as symmetrical. He omits a profound difference: The prodigious Israeli military receives a significant share of its budget from our government.
This defines the conflict as one-sided, not symmetrical.
Until a viable Palestinian state is established, the cycle of bloodshed of innocent Palestinians and Israelis will continue.
[size=7]BRUCE T. BOCCARDY
Allston[/size]

Gay vows will boost economy
April 21, 2004
AS A MARRIED heterosexual who is following the gay marriage debate with alarm, I marvel at the desperate application of a law from 1913 to deny nonresident gays the right to marry in Massachusetts. This means that our beloved Commonwealth will become the most desirable state for gays to relocate to, which will not only increase the overall population and tax base for the stimulation of economic recovery but also -- and do
forgive me if I stereotype -- will bring a much-needed boost to our grooming and interior decorating businesses, as well as dramatically revitalize local arts and culture.
[size=7]CARL SCHROEDER
Swampscott[/size]

What's all the fuss about?
April 20, 2004
PRESIDENT BUSH was quoted on the front page of the April 12 Globe as saying: "I'm satisfied that I never saw any intelligence that indicated there was going to be an attack on America at a time and a place of an attack " So what is everybody complaining about? He's satisfied. All he wanted to know was when, what, and where? It was a dinner invitation. They chose just to show up. Was their discourtesy our fault? We are well governed by the president, his vice president and secretary of defense.
They have amply demonstrated it. We should all shut up and leave them alone. They might find a law and a judge that will do that for them.[/size]E.S. GOLDMAN
South Orleans

Bush should apologize for 9/11
April 20, 2004
NO ONE is saying that George W. Bush is solely at fault or directly responsible for not having prevented the horrific attacks of Sept. 11 ("Bush has nothing to apologize for," letter, April 16). The letter writer Erik Moy is right: The list should include George Bush, Bill Clinton, and many others from both administrations, as well as the intelligence agencies. They should all express sentiments of regret and some
responsibility for what happened.
But it is ridiculous for the writer to mention that Bush didn't commit the attacks as a reason for his not having to apologize. Richard Clarke apologized, and I don't think he committed the attacks either. Clearly the writer misses the point.
The apology is not about who committed the attacks. Does anyone expect Osama bin Laden to call and say, "Sorry"? The apology is about not having done more in trying to stop the terrible tragedy and keep the people of this great nation safe.
The facts demonstrate that Bush and his administration could have done more in their efforts to prevent, or at least prepare for, a terrorist attack.
Furthermore, questioning Bush is not partisan. He is running almost exclusively on his leadership in the actions taken against terrorism. Therefore, the voters have a right to know what he did and did not do to keep them safe before and after Sept. 11. Even if Bill Clinton or anyone else apologizes, although it would be a good thing, it won't mean as
much. Bush is president at the moment, and he is supposed to be a leader.
If he had more courage, he would apologize to the American people, particularly to those who lost loved ones, for this tragic failure.
What happened to "the buck stops here"?
[size=7]OWEN CONNEELY
Newton[/size]

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.