The 2,000th Death

The Spokesman for the American led multinational forcecalled on news organizations to look at the 2,000th death as a milestone in the conflict. Lt. Col. Steve Boylan described the figure as an “artificial mark on the wall.”

“I ask that when you report on the events, take a moment to think about the effect it has on the families and those serving in Iraq.” Boylan said in an email. “The 2,000th service member killed in Iraq supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom is not a milestone. It is an artificial mark on the wall set by individuals or groups with specific agendas and ulterior motives.”

It seems to me that the only artificial mark on the wall set by individuals or groups with specific agendas and ulterior motives are the pro-war characters: Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld, with their financial interests in oil and no-bid contracts for war connected work.

Last Choice of a President

Letter to the Times of London

Dear editor:

In a story on President Bush and problems with Syria (Oct. 25th, by Philippe Naughton and Agencies) he is quoted as saying, "A military (option) is always the last choice of a president." Mr Bush told that to al-Arabiya television in an interview broadcast today. Interesting choice of words for a man who speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

This is the very same president who took America to a pre-emptive war that has resulted in 2,000 American military deaths, tens of thousands of American wounded and untold thousands of deaths of Iraqi citizens. Why wasn't the Iraqi war "the last choice of a president?"

Shoe On The Other Foot

Letter to the New York Times:

Dear Editor:

You report (October 24th) that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), in reference to the White House leak investigation, has stated, "If there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars."

That's fine. But it seems that Ms. Hutchison has a conveniently short memory. The Republicans spent six years and millions of dollars, and came up with only a "perjury technicality" against the President of the United States (Clinton) as grounds for an impeachment proceeding. And he didn't endager anyone's life as did Rove and Libby. Talk about a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.

Let Them Eat Cake

Dear Editor:

While the French people were starving and had no bread, Marie Antionette showed her disdain by uttering those famous words, “Let them eat cake.” While Rome burned, Nero showed his uncaring attitude by playing his fiddle. And while over 60% of America has lost faith with his administration, George W. Bush, at a Rose Garden press conference, showed his complete disregard for what is going on around him by stating, "There's some background noise here, a lot of chatter, a lot of speculation and opining,"

“Background noise?” “Chatter?” Is this truly what Bush thinks? Is he so removed from the electorate and reality that he is completely isolated from what is swirling around him and his administration? Does he really have the gall to stand and say to America that he doesn’t care that almost 2,000 Americans are dead in Iraq, that the Republican leaders of the House and Senate are suspected of financial finagling, that high level people in the White House probably leaked information about an undercover member of the CIA, that FEMA was a bigger disaster than Hurricane Katrina, that his cronyism with political appointments has hit a terrible snag with Harriet Miers, that the country’s debt is reaching the point of no return thanks to his spending policies, and that his catering to the rich lobbyists, corporations and wealthy in this country has turned off the average American? Is this all just “background noise” and “chatter” to him?

Recess Appointment Idiocy

Letter to the Chrisitian Science Monitor:

Dear Editor:

I cannot believe the "Letter to the Editor" in the Oct. 17th edition from Paul Feiner titled Probationary Period For Miers in which he calls for the president to wait and make a temporary recess appointment for Harriet Miers to sit on the Supreme Court. He states that this would be a good way for the Senate and America to evaluate how good or bad a justice she would be. What kind of idiocy is this?

The Supreme Court is the high court of the land and cannot be a place of on the job training which could possibly jeopardize the interpretation of the laws of this country. This isn't a game. Decisions from this court can effect everyone in this country and the damage done by a recess appointment so that "Miers could be placed on probation" would be disasterous. I've read bad ideas before but this one takes the cake.

Bushville Truth

Sent to the Washington Post:

Dear Editor:

In Saturday's edition of the Washington Post (10/15) under the headline "Iraq's Democratic Determination," columnist Steve Hadley states, " But what matters is that the draft constitution is a document written by Iraqis for Iraqis." I am amazed at this statement.

Time and again we have read in the Post, and other news outlets, how our ambassador to Iraq has taken part in and pushed for American desires in the writing of this document. Were these reports false? Or is Mr. Hadley living in the outerworld of Bushville, where truth never enters into proclamations?

Constitution Meddling In Iraq

Dear editor:

In an editorial in New York Post.com on October 14th, it is stated:

Happily, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad brokered an agreement on four key amendments to the constitution — the most important of which allows for further revision after December's round of parliamentary voting.

Is this the democracy that Mr. Bush speaks about? One that allows an American Ambassador to broker and control the new constitution of another country? Is Mr. Bush trying to help set up a democracy or a colony that will do things "our way?"

Religious Dangers

Yesterday I sent a letter to the editor stating how unhappy I am about the religious reasons in the president's choice of Harriet Miers to serve on the Supreme Court. Seems I have good reason to feel this way. Here are some quotes today from the Washington Post on this very subject:

Family Research Council leader James Dobson, a major figure in the religious conservative movement said that Karl Rove had informed him in advance of the choice of Miers and assured him, in his words, that "Harriet Miers is an Evangelical Christian, that she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life, that she had taken on the American Bar Association on the issue of abortion and fought for a policy that would not be supportive of abortion, that she had been a member of the Texas Right to Life."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said earlier today that Rove was only "reaching out" to presumed conservative supporters skeptical about her nomination to the court to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Dobson's comments, and now the president's, come amid growing anger among conservative intellectuals about the Miers appointment and about the appropriateness of religion being a factor in Supreme Court nominations.

And:

"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush said. "They want to know Harriet Miers's background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. Part of Harriet Miers life is her religion," he said,

Words like this only worry me more about freedom of religion in this country.

Volunteers vs. Mercenaries

Dear editor:

Since July the Army has been offering prospective recruits what it calls "assignment incentive pay." That is $400 a month in extra pay for as many as 36 months if an enlistee agrees to join any of the brigades of the 1st Cavalry Division or 25th Infantry Division scheduled to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Are we trying to rebuild our "volunteer" army or are we recruiting a highly paid army of “mercenaries?” How high a price is our government willing to put on our young people to join with the almost 2,000 American service people who have already died in Iraq? Do we next offer enlistments to citizens of other nations to act as our “soldiers of fortune?” Are we really that hungry to "stay the course?"

The "Right" Religion

Dear editor:

The Sunday news was very enlightening as to the nomination of Harriet Miers to be a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Bush administration and the press were both silent on Ms. Miers qualifications based upon her judicial knowledge and experience, or on her published writings on judicial matters. Of course, neither of these qualifications exist.

But, the newspapers and TV reports were loaded with the fact that she went to church twice on Sunday, which proves how good a person she truly is. Her conservative, born again, evangelical religious conviction is being touted as the most important qualification this White House counsel needs to be a high court judge. Does this mean that being a loyal crony of the president, being of the “right” religious faith, and being “a good person” is what it takes?

Most importantly, does this mean that only Evangelical, Born Again Christians should serve on the court? Does it mean that people of other faiths, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, and Mormons are not eligible, even if they have the normal qualifications to be a high court justice? Does it mean that I should tell my grandchildren that they are second class citizens and that their religious background makes them ineligible?

And does it mean that the president and his core constituency don’t really give a damn about the rest of us?