Letters To The Editor


July 01, 2005

Bush overlooks need to change course in Iraq

Listening to the president's speech Tuesday night made me realize how little he's in touch with the reality in Iraq and the very pressing need to change direction ("Iraq war vital to U.S. safety, Bush declares," June 29).

Once, I was convinced that our troops, though sent to Iraq under false pretenses and in a misbegotten strategy, needed to stay until the bloodshed our invasion had unleashed was under control.

No longer.

It's becoming all too apparent that it is the very presence of an overwhelming American military force that is fueling the violence in that country.

Our young people are dying in vain, under a policy that is making the situation more favorable for the growth of terrorism and infinitely worse for the Iraqi people they are supposed to be helping.

To reduce terrorism and to save lives of Americans and Iraqis, it's time to bring our troops home now.

Nancy Moore


President Bush's speech offered no plan, no exit strategy - nothing new.

Things keep getting worse in Iraq. And the Bush administration's policy is out of touch with reality.

We need to turn control of the training of Iraqi forces and the rebuilding of Iraq over to the international community.

Jacqueline Smelkinson


Speech suggests Vietnam time warp

Listening to President Bush's speech on Iraq is like living in a time warp ("Iraq war vital to U.S. safety, Bush declares," June 29).

Once again, a president from Texas continues to insist that the United States is making progress in a war despite all evidence to the contrary. Will it take another Tet offensive to convince us that at best we are in a stalemate?

Having already declared "Mission Accomplished" and claimed that giving Iraq sovereignty and then holding an election would turn the corner against the insurgency in Iraq, Mr. Bush now tests our patience when he argues we need to stay the course.

Meanwhile, the costs of the war in lives and money mount, making it even more difficult to address the pressing problems here at home.

Peter Levy


Support president to keep nation safe

I support the president and the fighting going on in Iraq for one reason that cannot be denied: We are at war ("Iraq war vital to U.S. safety, Bush declares," June 29).

Our enemies, the same vermin who hijacked jet passenger liners and flew them into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, murdering about 3,000 innocent people, are attacking our soldiers and the innocent people of Iraq.

Iraq is currently the front line of this war.

Retreat is not an option. Pulling the troops back would only move the front line.

The only way this war will end will be by exterminating the terrorists and all who support them.

M. Norman Ryan

Bel Air

Blessed to have Bush in our troubled times

In this time of unprecedented threat to the United States and amid international turmoil, our nation is blessed to have President Bush as its leader. He takes on the hard issues, stays the course with courage and conviction and inspires our citizenry ("Iraq war vital to U.S. safety, Bush declares," June 29).

Will our nation's liberals ever stop whining and realize what a wonderful, gifted and principled president we have?

Mr. Bush is a man for the age. I stand by him. I salute his great works.

It's time for The Sun to re-evaluate its shameful bias and examine its own contribution to the nation's ills by withholding its support for our president and thereby aiding those who would harm us.

John Hawkins


Bush policy turned Iraq into a threat

It saddens me that President Bush is still trying to tie the 9/11 attacks to Saddam Hussein. But one thing Mr. Bush said in his speech Tuesday is true: The Iraq war is vital to U.S. safety now ("Iraq war vital to U.S. safety, Bush declares," June 29).

It wasn't, however, until we went into Iraq with an insufficient number of troops and totally destabilized the country.

Mr. Hussein was a ruthless dictator, but he was not a threat to America. He was secularist with no ties to the terrorists or religious zealots.

And it is sad that so many American soldiers are losing life and limb for Mr. Bush's personal vendetta against Mr. Hussein.

Mary Remington


Renewable energy is the better option

Although America undoubtedly needs a diversified energy infrastructure to limit the influence of Middle East oil, reviving the nuclear energy industry is the wrong way to go ("Bush visits Md., praises its nuclear power plant," June 23).

The best approach is to reduce energy consumption through efficiency measures.

And why should taxpayers continue to subsidize a dangerous and uneconomical energy source?

New nuclear power plants will cost billions to build, and their long-term costs are billions more.

The federal government assumes the great bulk of the insurance liability for a nuclear disaster, and after the plant is decommissioned, the energy company is no longer responsible for the radioactive waste that will last for generations.

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.