Posted: Tuesday, Oct 17, 2006 - 04:19:52 pm CDT Jefferson City, MO News Tribune  Your Opinion 

GOP is party of weakness

Dear Editor: A common Republican tactic uses a word like “weakness” to condemn opponents when your own party is actually weak.

I believe President Bush, his administration, and the Republican-controlled Congress have been:

1. Weak on fighting real terrorists;
2. weak on protecting us from the 9/11 attack by ignoring serious threats;
3. weak by diverting attention from bin Laden and Afghanistan to Iraq;
4. weak by not listening to the advice of those involved in the first Gulf War;
5. weak by intentionally misleading the American people about WMDs in Iraq;
6. weak by not allowing the UN inspections to be completed before invading Iraq and thus losing broad coalition support;
7. weak by not listening to the military leaders on troop strength needed in Iraq;
8. weak by dismissing Gen. Jay Garner's smart plan for post-invasion Iraq in favor of the Bremer plan which disbanded the entire Iraqi Army shortly after the invasion;
9. weak by intentionally destroying the Iraqi infrastructure as part of the invasion;
10. weak by not giving our soldiers safe, effective equipment for fighting;
11. weak by weakening our troops with deadly extensions and redeployments;
12. weak by relying on our National Guard troops to fight a war in Iraq;
13. weak by allowing Donald Rumsfeld to lead us into this quagmire;
14. weak by breaking our own laws to allow eavesdropping on Americans;
15. weak by breaking rules of the Geneva Accords by torturing prisoners;
16. weak by lying to the American people about “progress” in Iraq;
17. weak and immoral by building up an eight-plus trillion dollar debt;
18. weak by cutting funding for local law enforcement;
19. weak by focusing more on toothpaste tubes than ship cargo containers;
20. etc; etc.

Let's call a spade a spade. Let's call the weak Party weak.

Dick Dalton Jefferson City

Posted: Sunday, Oct 08, 2006 - 04:34:39 am CDT Jefferson City, MO News Tribune Your Opinion

So-called outburst maligns Clinton

Dear Editor:

It first aired on a Monday. By the following Friday I had seen it a dozen times: President Clinton's forceful response to Chris Wallace's pointed question, “Why didn't you do more to get Osama bin Laden?” Clinton's forcefulness was referred to by news pundits: “lost his temper,” “unprofessional,” etc.; and there were discussions of whether Clinton's “outburst” was justified.

This seemed bizarre! Politicians/pundits will make judgment calls as they will, but why such a negative slant? Why so exaggerated? Elections coming up? Did Clinton lie or tell the truth? Did Clinton say he tried to get Osama during his administration? Yes. Did he say he failed? Yes. At least he tried. Clinton's facts were right. Did President Bush do anything to get Osama? No, but he says he did. Instead he was diverted into a wasteful, deadly Iraq war. Why then all the exaggerated stir about Clinton's emotion? Was it politically incorrect? Maybe; maybe not.

Then I realized Clinton's forceful and direct manner was being used to divert people from the real issue. We were being manipulated into focusing on Clinton's “outburst” rather than on the fact that he was being blamed for 9/11! So, what about the real substance of Clinton's response? If you were blamed for a disaster that occurred while someone else was in charge, wouldn't you want to “set the record straight”?

The Clinton administration handed over to Bush a strategy for dealing with bin Laden and for 8 months Bush did nothing more than downplay its importance. Thus, the 9/11 disaster occurred on Bush's watch. Why didn't he do more to get Osama bin Laden? The so-called “outburst” was a positive thing, drawing attention to the questions of “why 9/11?” and “what did Bush do to prevent it?” If there is proof that Bush did anything, where is it?

Marsha Dalton Jefferson City