Letters to the editor

President Bush's ill-conceived remark that equates talking to the nation's adversaries to "appeasement" says more about why his administration's foreign policy is such an abysmal failure than it does about any of the presidential candidates who will have to clean up his messes.

Jim Ouellet

Playa del Rey



I find it outrageous that Bush would use the honor of addressing the Israeli Knesset to advance a domestic political agenda. He should be using that opportunity to help reach his stated goal of achieving peace in the region. By entering into domestic political battles, he undercuts what little authority he had left and shows us why this country will be significantly better come January.

Steven M. Clayton

Ocean, N.J.



Isn't Bush allowed to express his tough stance on terrorism and to declare appeasement a failure? Democrats' overreaction and hurt feelings make one think the president touched a nerve. Do they subconsciously believe themselves weak?

Rather than wasting energy acting appalled, Democrats should spend their time declaring why their policy of troop withdrawal is the better option. Democrats should talk about Bush's appeasement of oil companies, of catering to the wealthy over the middle class, of a failed war plan and of not capturing Osama bin Laden. They should point out he chose wartime tax cuts instead of funding bomb-resistant vehicles, body armor and additional troops. They should also note that his tough talk took place in Israel because any other country wouldn't accept this position for a war that has gone on too long.

David DiBello

Lakewood, N.J.



Bush is correct about not negotiating with Iran as long as it is being run by terrorists. Barack Obama will lead the U.S. to certain destruction if his policy of appeasement with Iran is put into place. Along with the goal of open borders, this is a recipe for the certain annihilation of millions of Americans.

Roger Anderson

Hemet

A mighty wind

Re "Dixie win bodes well for Democrats," May 15

The media focus on whether Hillary Rodham Clinton voters will support Barack Obama or vice versa misses the real story in this election cycle: the unprecedented number of primary voters for Democrats. Even before John McCain sewed up the nomination, Democrats were outpolling Republicans. In all three special elections in what were solid GOP districts, Democrats won handily. There is a mighty wind of change sweeping across the country, and Republicans don't have a storm shelter.

John Gallogly

Los Angeles

Sendler inspires

Re "WWII savior of young Jews," May 13

As I picked up The Times this morning, I braced myself for the usual tales of mendacity, criminality, greed and blind ambition. But there was a story of breathtaking inspiration about Irena Sendler, a Polish Catholic social worker who had risked her life again and again to save Jews -- mostly children -- during the Holocaust; a woman of such courage, love and transcendent goodness that, looking at the rest of the news, one can only wonder whether she was the same species as the rest of us.

Ronald Rubin

Topanga

Can rebates really help?

Re "Thanks for almost nothing," Opinion, May 14

I agree with one of the central premises of Erica Sackin's well-written Op-Ed article: that President Bush's tax rebates are pointless and won't do any good. But I am concerned about why Sackin, "a gainfully employed 27-year-old," would have only $12 in her bank account and would charge her groceries to her credit card (apparently without paying it off each month).

Where does her income go? Does she, like many young professionals in New York, spend most of her money on rent? Perhaps she should move to a less expensive apartment in a less expensive part of town. Does she eat at trendy Manhattan restaurants on the weekends? Maybe she shouldn't. Does she have the latest clothes or shoes or electronics?

A major cause of young Americans' rising personal debt is their refusal to live within their means. And if they choose not to, is it really the responsibility of the government -- that is, the taxpayers -- to provide a "safety net"?

Joe Laska

Culver City



Sackin's opinion is right on the money (pun intended). I am also a gainfully employed 27-year-old. In fact, I am gainfully employed twice over, working for both a marketing firm and as a server in the evenings and on weekends. I also have a hard time seeing how an extra $300 is going to significantly affect my life, or the economy for that matter. As soon as my check arrives, it will be going right back out to pay off money I already owe. In effect, it's already spent.

Rather than pumping more money into the economy, this rebate is pulling it out, placing more money into the hands of our creditors. Instead of giving the billions to the banks, maybe the president can use it for something worthwhile -- like bringing home the soldiers in Iraq.

Charles Pomerantz

Moorpark

An opportunity for King-Harbor

Re "Reviving King-Harbor," Opinion, May 14

Zev Yaroslavsky's proposed solution to reinstate full services at Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Medical Center is a breath of fresh air. However, he perpetuates a serious misconception of the medical center's present status. King-Harbor was not and is not closed. Comprehensive outpatient clinical services have continued to be provided at King-Harbor, including general medical services, drop-in urgent care, numerous medical and surgical specialty clinics and all necessary support services. It remains a viable, functioning medical center, just without inpatient or trauma care.

Let us not downplay the importance of and critical need for outpatient medical care in this community as we struggle to reinstate the other King-Harbor services that have been temporarily suspended.

David E. Dassey

Los Angeles



We applaud Yaroslavsky's bold call for a new direction and approach in seeking a viable operator for Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Medical Center. His proposal for a new governance structure for a potential partnership between the University of California and Los Angeles County is just the shot in the arm the process needs.

In combination with a public/private-sector strategy to enhance prevention, primary care and specialty care services, this investment by the county will yield even greater returns for the residents of South-Central Los Angeles who are in desperate need of access to high-quality healthcare.

An important window of opportunity has now opened, and we encourage the UC system to take Yaroslavsky's overture to heart and begin to engage in serious discussions on reopening this important and critical community icon. Robert K. Ross

Los Angeles

The writer is president and chief executive of the California Endowment.

The adoption option

Re "Maternity home's 100-year evolution," May 13

The Times writes, "These days the pregnant young women who come to St. Anne's rarely if ever give their babies up for adoption." I feel it takes a very special kind of motherly love for a young girl to put the best interests of her child before her own. My husband and I adopted two children born at St. Anne's back in the 1960s. Our adopted daughter, with our blessing, reunited with her birth parents eight years ago.

After making the difficult decision to give her up, they grew up, graduated from college, married other people and had successful families. They stayed in touch and waited many years to look for her so as not to disrupt her life. They and our daughter are sure they made the best decision. I hope that some of these "tough kids" currently at St. Anne's are encouraged to at least consider the adoption option in the best interests of their babies.

Cleo M. Sopp

Whittier

Quake is no time to advance agenda

Re "Policy of sorrow," May 15

I was severely disappointed to see an article about the recent earthquake in China taking advantage of this moment to make commentary on our two countries' differing political views.

It is cruel to take such a tragic moment and turn it into evidence for an argument on population control, especially when the media should be using their pull to raise awareness about the earthquake, not to push an agenda.

Furthermore, the supposition that a one-child family feels more pain than a larger family at the loss of a child is disgustingly naive. Children are precious. Their loss is to be mourned and never to be used as political fuel.

Britt Flaherty

San Diego