Linking Elections in Iraq, Elections in U.S.

Re “Surging Shiite Demands Put U.S. in a Bind,” Jan. 18: It seems quite possible that the Shiite majority in Iraq could be decisive in whether George W. Bush gets reelected to another four years. The Shiites are starting to become very impatient with the Bush administration’s timetable in Iraq. Your typical religious Shiite, of which there are many, knowing of Bush’s strong commitment to Israel and to those who want to convert all Muslims to Christianity, will be hard pressed to want to give much breathing space to this U.S. administration. The Shiite situation will also be a true test of what the administration really meant when it talked about bringing democracy to Iraq.

Bush is in a bind. His only way out is to get the United Nations to help him. But the American electorate should view this as something that should have been done a long time ago -- not 500 troop deaths later.

The arrogant Dubya is pathetic, and he shouldn’t feel that he needs to keep convincing us just how terrible a leader he truly is.

Jim Nathan

Buena Park

*

Yeah, Iraqi elections before June 30. Get the irrelevant United Nations in there passing dozens of irresolute resolutions and you’ll be lucky to see an election by June 2010.

Those who didn’t have the fortitude to stand up and be counted in the first place should have no say in the proceedings now.

Robert Bartow

Calabasas

*

Re “Highways Marked by Tension and Risk,” Jan. 16: “The average payout for a loss of life has been $2,500,” the Army stated, after the most recent civilian deaths of a mother and her 7-year-old son. These deaths and thousands of others are the direct result of the American-led preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq. I hope others find this statement as pathetic and inexcusable as I do within the context of the big lies that brought our troops there in the first place.

Mitch O’Farrell

Glassell Park