President Bush’s War on Terrorism

Re “Bush Vows to Take War on Terror to Hostile Nations, Calls for Unity,” Jan. 30: The pedestrian semantics of President Bush’s speech writers sounded much the same as Ronald Reagan’s, who penned the simplistic “evil empire.”

Why not rely upon the United Nations before committing our resources to eliminate the scourge of terrorism worldwide? One need only look at the official French reaction (who owe their very existence to us) to know that memories are short and that most countries will remain noncommittal until the wolf is at their door. The United Nations provides the only acceptable stage for this challenge.

Kevin Park

Agoura Hills

*

Bush has declared war on terrorism, but there are no prisoners of war.

Bush calls for responsibility but protects Enron.

Bush calls for investing in America--volunteer.

Bush now values Social Security, admitting the stock market is a gamble.

Bush says the government will pay and still have tax cuts--accounting manipulations?

What is “is,” Mr. President? I am trying to read your lips.

Judith M. Tull

Anaheim

*

David Hood (letter, Jan. 31) questions President Bush for “not having the guts to come out and declare [war].” The reason Hood states is so the Bush administration doesn’t have to give the detainees “those nasty ‘rights.’ ”

So, if Hood is correct, our undeclared war wasn’t about the unprovoked attack on our country, or the thousands of victims who lost their lives or their families. It isn’t even about the thousands who lost their jobs, which may never come back. It’s not about the hundreds of firefighters or NYPD officers who are now suffering respiratory problems. We went halfway around the world and spent billions of dollars just so we could capture a couple hundred guys and bring them to a tropical island, feed them bagels and cream cheese and give them their own religious leader. That must have been what we wanted the whole time.

If Bush had declared war, or the attack an act of war, none of those victims would have been able to file any life insurance claims, nor would any of the businesses affected by the attacks be allowed to do so, because the losses would have occurred due to an act of war, thus voiding any claims. Now, unless Hood was in Afghanistan, took part in the war effort and helped to capture and interrogate these detainees, I would suggest that he let the highly trained professionals handle this one.

Thomas Rollins

Oakland

*

It always starts with a war.

The president or chief has to be in charge. Everyone rallies. Then he needs more authority. What’s a little more authority in times of crisis?

Then he needs more domestic control. Well, that makes sense. How can a president fight a war without home security? He may need to listen in on private conversations. If your conversations need to be private, maybe they’re dangerous.

Then the war gets hotter and the president needs a few more extraordinary powers. He shouldn’t have to consult opposition leaders to make decisions. Everyone must sacrifice during wartime.

Are we there yet? You decide.

Esther Cole

Ventura

*

While volunteering is a noble pursuit, it should not be used as a means for business and government to shirk their responsibilities to contribute to the common good. Specifically, Bush adds insult to injury when he calls for teachers and nurses to volunteer. These professionals have for too long been overworked, underpaid and undervalued. Instead, I would like to see our president propose that Enron executives and other corporate pirates “volunteer” their ill-gotten profits to bail out beleaguered trauma centers and schools in the inner cities.

Linda Piera-Avila

Santa Monica