Letters To The Editor


May 01, 2007

Arrogant for Bush to veto the war bill

On Wednesday, this nation's House of Representatives approved a bill that would extend funding for the war in Iraq and set a timetable for troops to begin heading home. On Thursday, the Senate passed the same bill. But the bill will likely soon be vetoed by President Bush ("Senators set up veto showdown," April 27).

If the president vetoes this bill, he will again reject the views expressed by the majority of voters of last November, who demanded that our troops be brought home in a timely fashion from Iraq.

The president continues to reject not only the views of the majority in both houses of Congress but to ignore the will of the electorate. How arrogant can a president be?

The common-sense answer to a veto from the electorate and its representatives should not be to give the president a bill that is more to his liking but to begin impeachment hearings immediately.

This president deserves no better fate than impeachment.

Peter J. Schap Jr.


Cutting off funding may bring war home

The Iraq funding bill the Democrats wrote is treacherous ("Senators set up veto showdown," April 27).

It would end up bringing our soldiers home from Iraq. But what would follow?

It would be dangerous to our nation and our families to let the war come over here.

I am only in seventh grade, but I agree that President Bush should veto this bill.

Alison McKee

York, Pa.

The writer is a home-schooled seventh-grader.

Iraqis may not want more U.S. meddling

I may sound naive but I wonder if our president is cognizant of the fact that the Iraqis might want us out of their country, along with our attempt to impose democracy on Iraq ("Rice warns Congress on Iraq," April 30).

I was not opposed to the war until I learned it was based on lies.

President Bush ought to concede to his enormous mistake and rectify it by bringing home our troops as soon as possible.

Doris Patz


Use price controls to limit oil profits

ExxonMobil Corp.'s first-quarter profit of $9.3 billion is obscene ("Record Exxon profit," April 27).

It is obscene because, for the most part, the money came from families struggling to operate their automobiles and heat their homes. Many of these families are struggling to make ends meet.

It is the government's responsibility to correct this injustice.

An excess-profits tax is not the answer. All this would do would be to give the politicians more money to pour into their favorite pork barrel projects.

The answer to the problem involves two steps.

Step one is for the politicians to get out of bed with the oil refining companies.

Step two is that it is absolutely imperative that some sort of price controls be put on gasoline and home heating fuel.

If this causes the refineries to lose money, they can take the loss out of their previous exorbitant profits.

Wesley Blickenstaff Sr.


House did impeach President Clinton

I must say that I was confused after reading Thomas F. Schaller's column "GOP dragged us into a decade of political decline" (Opinion * Commentary, April 25).

He writes that there was a "ham-handed attempt to impeach" President Bill Clinton during his second term in office.

I have to correct the good professor by noting that Mr. Clinton was impeached during that term by the House of Representatives. But he was never convicted and removed by the Senate.

Chris Greco

Perry Hall

Gun rights shield us against tyranny

Advocates of gun control have their hearts in the right place.

They point to the fact that many crimes are committed with a gun, that the majority of armed robberies are committed with a gun, and that the vast majority of murders are committed with a gun. These are known facts.

Therefore, they reason, if we could get rid of guns, the crimes committed with these instruments would also vanish ("Stronger gun limits could curb tragedies," letters, April 26).

And that may very well be the case. But the framers of the Constitution did not include the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights to provide protection from criminals, per se.

The Second Amendment was written to protect the public from the possible tyranny of their own government.

The framers knew that an unarmed citizenry is defenseless against an army controlled by the government.

Today, we are lucky to live in a world where the American government does its best to protect the people.

However, without the protections afforded to us by the Bill of Rights, the government could turn to tyranny.

The Second Amendment gives the citizenry the means to defend its unalienable rights.

Loui Georgalas


Show compassion for the mentally ill

I find it a hopeful sign to hear a few voices speak of compassion for Seung-Hui Cho, both in life and in death. And the reminder from the writer of the letter "Rejection by peers prompts Cho's wrath" (April 26) that we must respect every human's inherent dignity should be heeded.

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.