Letters to the editor

‘Truth, the whole truth, nothing but’

Re “Executive privilege touchy for presidential candidates,” July 29

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney loudly proclaim their goal of protecting executive privilege for the good of the presidency. However, the constant use of executive privilege to cover administration wrongdoing and to protect underlings from criminal charges will eventually weaken the president’s office in areas in which the White House actually needs special consideration.

Using executive privilege to protect the administration from accountability is not a proper use of presidential power. But what should we expect from an administration that has never hesitated to take the low road when it serves its purposes? Future presidents are bound to lose some of the legitimate leeway their office requires because of the code of silence currently being used to thwart congressional investigations.

Ralph GivensDaly City

When the House Un-American Activities Committee held hearings in 1947, 10 witnesses appeared who, on constitutional grounds, refused to answer certain questions. They were later indicted for contempt of Congress and served prison sentences. Is the subpoena of the Senate Judiciary Committee so much less imperative that witnesses can refuse with impunity to even appear?

Robert GoldfarbStudio City

Re “Truce or consequences,” editorial, July 28

What a shameful suggestion: Congress’ focus should be on pressing the president to embrace a compromise floated by [Sen. Arlen] Specter (R-Pa.) and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) in which [Harriet E.] Miers, Karl Rove and others would testify for the record but not under oath. If I were asked to testify on any matter, I would as a matter of course give the complete truth because that is the way I was brought up. Taking the oath or not taking the oath would not affect my testimony. Are we to tell government officials, who are our agents, that we understand that they might not want to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” and that therefore they don’t have to take an oath to that effect?

Ethan AronoffLos Angeles

Two views of the president

Re “Al Qaeda on the brain,” editorial, July 30

You do a great disservice by again spouting your anti-President Bush lines. There is no greater threat to our democracy and way of life than the threat of major terrorist attacks by ultra-extremist Muslim groups sworn to our destruction. They say they want to kill us, and I believe them; after all, they have a pretty good track record. Remember 9/11 and the attacks on our democratic allies in Europe? Thank heaven we have a strong president defending the U.S.

Mark E. BuchmanLos Angeles

If you buy the president’s reasoning on Al Qaeda in Iraq, then Osama bin Laden first used U.S. airliners to kill almost 3,000 innocent people on 9/11 -- shame on him; he then used a U.S. president and his administration to kill 3,600-plus brave citizens in Iraq -- shame on us.

Owen HusneySherman Oaks

Bush has been waging a campaign of disinformation aimed at convincing the uninformed and gullible among us that Al Qaeda is our main enemy in Iraq and that, unless we continue to shed our blood on Iraqi soil, we’ll be fighting them on American streets. Despite intelligence to the contrary from his top military commanders and the intelligence community, Bush has been saying there are direct links between Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan and Al Qaeda forces in Iraq. This isn’t the first time Bush has ignored or skewed intelligence reports to fit his private agenda. His preferred strategy is to repeat a lie over and over until people begin to believe it. Unfortunately, the group that is most vulnerable to his disinformation is our military-age youth.

Tom TurnerDana Point

The church and trust

Re “Abuse victims turned to Mahony in anger, pain,” July 30

While I hope that some of the clergy molestation victims who met with Los Angeles Cardinal Roger M. Mahony feel better having done so, I have some serious concerns. I worry that any time victims of child sex abuse meet with any church official, there’s a chance that deep wounds may be reopened and that information about crimes may be misused. I worry that younger victims now dealing with their own abuse might be tempted to seek out a church official for help, rather than law enforcement or credentialed therapists.

These recent meetings do not change the fact that, for five years, Mahony spent church resources and parishioners’ donations to hire attorneys to deny victims justice. The church has much work to do to regain trust. Truth forums, like those held in South Africa after apartheid, would go a long way toward regaining that trust.

Mary PitcherLong Beach

I had my moment with Mahony in 2002. It was at his office. He wouldn’t let my friend who drove me there come in for moral support. Of course, he had a priest there as his sidekick and stated that a church employee was my advocate. If I didn’t accept it, the meeting would be canceled. I thought he would hear my story and be so humbled and horrified that he would do something to stop abuse and help victims. His response was that of a coffee table. I found him an unfeeling figurehead with no heart. I’m glad for those victims who got some measure of relief talking with him. I am more thankful to the members of SNAP [Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests] and the lawyers who represented victims. They provided justice and vindication.

Mary FerrellLakewood

In all of The Times’ coverage of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, no one has asked the obvious question: Why didn’t the families of the first victims call the police immediately instead of complaining to their bishops, who persuaded them to remain silent?

Sexual abuse is a crime. If those families had done the right thing, many later abuses would never have happened.

Also, why hasn’t Mahony been charged with aiding and abetting or obstruction of justice?

Forrest G. WoodBakersfield

Walking Felix the Cat backward

Re “It’s your history, but it’s our sign,” Opinion, July 26

Darryl Holter misstated the role of the Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission in approving historic cultural monument status for the famed Felix the Cat rooftop sign and showroom.

The commission does not make the final determination on such designations: The Felix nomination still requires approval by the full City Council. Historic designation in Los Angeles also does not ensure that any building “will remain in place in perpetuity.” The commission may only object to a demolition permit for 180 days. While the commission gives great weight to the arguments of property owners, our responsibility is to assess objectively whether proposed sites meet the city’s defined criteria for historic designation. The giant Felix the Cat sign is unquestionably a significant visual icon of Los Angeles. Monument status would not freeze Felix in time; it would merely open a dialogue to begin determining its future.

Mary Klaus-MartinPresidentRichard BarronVice President, Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission

A little PR from the Pentagon?

Re “A story arc worthy of Hollywood,” July 30

Adm. Michael Mullen’s father, former top Hollywood press agent Jack Mullen, would have beamed at seeing his son’s story in Tuesday’s Times. It would be the kind of publicity Jack would have created and wallowed in.

I knew Jack, as a junior public relations account executive, in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s. He would hold a weekly meeting to create PR stories such as the “Navy man’s” piece. Jack was the reflection of a kind of P.T. Barnum personality in publicity and public relations that no longer exists.

Hopefully, Adm. Mullen has inherited his father’s flair for “good” publicity. Should he succeed in his nomination as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, let’s pray he will use some of his father’s talents at “positive spinning” and help the Bush administration dig out of what Jack Mullen would have called a “press agent’s nightmare.”

Michael L. GracePalm Springs

Where’s the relief for the rest of us?

Re “Before budget fight, Bush puts up his fists on taxes,” uly 27

The problem with the president’s promise to “keep taxes low” is that they’re not low. They’re low for him. Middle-class people don’t keep their money; their taxes are not low; and meaningful relief from a crushing combination of income and payroll taxes would have produced a moral and economically dynamic result. Instead, the wealthy got the “relief,” the middle class got small checks and wartime America got massive annual revenue losses. But if the goals are the enrichment of Republican donor constituencies, national debt enlargement and creating a scarcity of resources that justifies the Republican passion for working-class program cuts, the Bush tax cuts make out like champs.

Vicki LivingstonRancho Palos Verdes

Tax smokers for littering too

Re “Outcast tax,” editorial, July 28

I support the state Senate’s plan to add 61 cents to the existing 39-cent federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes to pay for the state Children’s Health Insurance Program. As long as we are targeting smokers, let’s add a per pack “litter” tax to finance the cleanup of the cigarette butts that pollute public areas.

While I sympathize with smokers who attempt to quit, I feel disdain toward those who feel entitled to discard their butts out the car window, in the park, at the beach, on the sidewalk, etc.

Or better yet, how about enforcing the existing litter laws with respect to this class of offenders?

The proceeds can finance the above-mentioned insurance program.

Cheryl CarisPacific Palisades

I bitterly resent your gratuitous insult to lawyers by including us in your editorial as burdens to society. May your tribe decrease.

Volney V. Brown Jr. Dana Point