Opinion: Congress should support president in war on terror

Well, here we go again. That stumbling legislative body we refer to as Congress wants more information about our country's aims and goals in the war on terrorism. The members of Congress have already been told that the goals of the current campaign are to drastically reduce the threat of terrorism, which targets Americans and our allies. It is our intent to do this by utilizing every means at our disposal.

Congress and the American people have already been told that our forces will target every terrorist group and those world leaders who support terrorism. Congress has also been told repeatedly that this will not be a short operation but will take years to accomplish. Aside from this, Congress should not be informed of daily military operations or plans. Members of Congress have shown us repeatedly that they have no concept of secrecy, military tactics, military strategy, or sincere concern for the welfare of American troops in battle. They have prevented the military from winning past conflicts and now seem poised to do so once again.

Our president is the commander in chief of all our military forces and in the conduct of this current war must have two primary concerns: the welfare of our troops and the absolute secrecy of current and planned operations. Members of Congress have proved time and again that their primary concern is getting re-elected.

So, my advice to Sens. Hillary Clinton, Kent Conrad and others is to support the president, and by so doing you will be supporting our young and brave forces who are fighting the war which you concerned politicians have brought upon us. Remember that no American military person has ever started a war; it is always the politicians, often aided by the media, who start wars because of their failure in diplomacy.
-- Raymond A. Wing, Spring Hill

Not a political issue

I am completely in favor of secrecy and caution in revealing our intentions in public. There have been too many "leaks," and we cannot afford them when we are at war and our men and women are at risk.

Sen. Tom Daschle sits at the weekly breakfast meeting with the president; that is the time for him to bring up his concerns with the executive branch. For him to refer to the president's actions as a "secret government" is ridiculous. He should know that the function of Congress is to legislate and the executive branch (the president) should execute those laws passed by Congress. The president is doing what any good executive should do: Plan for all contingencies.

I resent Sen. Daschle turning this effort to protect our country into a political issue. He is putting his own self-interest and political aspirations ahead of our country's welfare. It is time for Sen. Daschle to do what he was elected to do -- protect the Constitution and our freedoms and do what is best for our country.
-- Sally Quinn, Hernando

Government goals must be clear

Re: Partisan politics hits war effort, March 1.

If we are truly fighting in Afghanistan to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world, then Republican congressional leaders should be ashamed of their ferocious partisan attacks on Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Daschle and other Democrats are doing what democracy demands -- insisting upon an open debate and discussion before permitting the Republicans to escalate our war against a specific group of terrorists into a wide-ranging series of attacks on foreign governments that are hostile to U.S. interests.

Somehow the Republicans have forgotten the lesson that America learned from the Vietnam War: Our government must be clear in its goals, focused on achievable ends and honest with the American people or we will be unwilling to take on the massive costs and sacrifices of fighting foreign wars.

When Sen. Daschle rises in the Senate to ask the Bush administration to make its policy on fighting terrorism clear, he speaks for me.
-- Jeannine Brewer, New Port Richey

President will get more questions

Re: Partisan politics hit war effort.

One thing is for certain concerning the remarks made by Tom Daschle: Even if you disagree with him, it is still becoming clear that the United States has a less-than-definite plan for the future, and questioning the president and the administration is going to become more and more common, regardless of party affiliation.

As Daschle stated, our goal initially was to get the parties responsible for Sept. 11 -- Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Mohammed Omar. Those goals haven't been met, and that is where we should continue to focus our efforts.

Instead, the United States has gone so far as to start threatening its political enemies -- the famed "axis of evil" -- who have no direct connection to Sept. 11, but instead threaten U.S. interests abroad.

When George W. Bush first spoke to Congress concerning this "war on terrorism," I believed he was going to make the current U.S. campaign a global effort to help end terrorism everywhere. That has not proved to be the goal. Instead, it looks as if Bush is taking a page from his father's administration by making the United States the policeman of the world once again.

Where is the vindication for Sept. 11? The end of the "campaign" seems further and further from the start now with more talk of action against nations that had nothing to do with Sept. 11.

Regardless of the "unpatriotic" moniker that will be pinned to me and others like me, I fully question where the Bush administration is taking things with this "war on terror." I'm proudly an American, but every American has the right to question the powers that be. In this case, the president and his advisers should be questioned on where they are going and the priorities of the ongoing war.
-- John Fontana, Palm Harbor

Lott's position is weak

I'm totally amazed that Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott would have the nerve to challenge the patriotism of Democrats.

How could Lott, who avoided military service, challenge the patriotism of people like Tom Daschle, who served as an officer in the SAC for three years, or Sen. John Kerry, who received the Bronze Star for valor, or Sen. Daniel K. Inouye and former Sen. Bob Kerrey, who both received the Medal of Honor for heroism above and beyond the call of duty?

Sen. Daschle has every right to question the direction and seemingly ever-changing goals in our war on terrorism, and Sen. Lott has every right to disagree. However, Lott is in no position to question the patriotism of anyone. And as a wounded veteran of the Vietnam War, I can tell you it's much easier to wrap yourself in the American flag than to actually defend it in combat.
-- David R. Jones, Zephyrhills

War can be a distraction

President Bush has a stake in keeping the United States in a state of war. While we have our minds on the war, his place as commander in chief causes Americans to give him strong support. His popularity remains high.

Other things that are happening get little attention. When war stops, we will start looking around at our own country, to see just what has been done to it. The surplus is gone, we all know that. But just what happened to it? It was nearly gone before Sept. 11. What is the condition of Social Security? How is the environment faring? Has George W. done much for anyone other than the top 2 percent?

When his Cabinet and other officials say "we" can invade Iraq, what is the definition of "we"? Will any Bush nephews be in the invading force? Any of their friends, their social class? I think not. So a war with Iraq would have only have benefits for them. The pain and suffering would be for others. I hope the public will think hard about this.
-- Eleanor McGee, St. Petersburg

A heavy burden to bear

March 4 must have been Ground Zero Day for the liberal newspapers to bash President Bush and his administration. Both opinion pages blasted just about every single thing on his wish list.

The topics ranged from the horrors of drilling oil in Alaska, to his and Vice President Dick Cheney's shady meetings in the White House with sleazy energy consultants, to losing our hard-earned money by privatizing Social Security, and, even managing to warn about the perils of Iraq having poison gas to use against U.S. troops.

It must be truly disturbing to wake up every morning on the staff of one of the most liberal newspapers in the nation and read the polls that give your most mortal enemy an 81 percent approval rating.

On this same day after the Times went to press, a U.S. Chinook troop transport helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan by terrorists, leaving multiple American casualties. How sad it is that the biased liberal press is so entrenched in getting its way that it refuses to extend full support of the war effort, and every other position our president takes to win an ultimate victory. Perhaps you should send over a free subscription to the Taliban to show them your unpatriotic disdain for our leader?

I consider myself a good American and will support every single policy our president considers important during wartime. Never has any man in history had a heavier load to bear. Thank God it's not Al Gore.
-- Guy U. Nash, St. Petersburg

The radio junk market

Re: O, where art thou on the radio?, editorial, March 2.

I was amused by your editorial on radio offerings in the Tampa Bay area.

As one who grew up listening to "The Great American Songbook," big band music and jazz by the likes of Louis Armstrong, Billie Holiday, Sarah Vaughan and Ella Fitzgerald, the Tampa Bay area, by and large, is a radio wasteland.

There are two stations that purport to offer nostalgia. Their music is repetitive and the advertising becomes intrusive. After all, how many times can one listen to Tony Bennett's I Left My Heart in San Francisco without starting to hate the recording and the city as well? The advertising, especially for a variety of medical and weight-loss products, is off-putting.

When all else is lost, there is the alternative of NPR. But, alas, one reads that it may give up its jazz offerings.

As for improvements, the outlook is bleak, not only in the Tampa area but throughout the country. There is a big market for junk, and it would be naive to expect the demand to lessen any time in the future.
-- Mel Garbar, Homosassa

Avoiding a tasteless effort

Re: Bridge of bras dooms station's fundraising plan, Feb. 27.

As a 10-year breast cancer survivor, I applaud Pinellas County Commissioner Karen Seel's sensitivity and good sense in her refusal to approve the "Bras Across the Bay" fundraiser. Having worked with Commissioner Seel at the last Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure, I can assure you that she wholeheartedly supports efforts to eradicate this devastating disease.

This event, though it might have been "attention-getting," was insensitive to victims and in the worst of taste.
-- Melody W. Figurski, Clearwater

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to 893-8675. They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page