Bush strategy is failing

President Bush's new world order of globalization, brought about with the doctrine of pre-emption, seems to be crumbling around him. His enemies, who were forced to retreat by the devastation rained on them by the greatest Air Force the world has ever seen, are returning in strength in areas lightly occupied by United States and coalition ground forces.Muslim countries throughout the world respond negatively to what they see as America's one-sided support of Israel. Yet Bush increases these responses by vetoing a U.N. call for a ceasefire in the Israeli-Lebanon war. Is the world as rosy as Bush would have us believe? Ed Powick, Cape May - Published in the Atlantic City Press, July 30, 2006

Bush won't kill embryos

I would like to know when President Bush became God. He is so pleased that, for the first time in his six years in office, he vetoed a bill. The bill was for federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. According to Bush, these embryos are children whom he will not kill -- not with money from the federal government. Yes, this is the same man who doesn't mind sending billions of taxpayers' money to fund the war in Iraq -- a war we shouldn't be in. We can't kill embryos, but we can help kill the people of Iraq. And by sending our armed forces to Iraq, we are also killing our own men and women. But I guess this is OK with him, because these people are not embryos. These are embryos, I'm sorry to say, that will never be used and eventually will be put out with the trash. Stem-cell research could help with so many diseases -- cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, strokes and heart diseases, just to name a few. I wonder if the president has ever watched a loved one with a cancerous brain tumor suffer day after day, month after month, until finally, after nothing more can be done, they die. I have. Has Bush watched a loved one be cut down in the prime of their life because of Parkinson's disease and a stroke? I have. Perhaps one day, a loved one of the president's will be struck down and then maybe he'll feel bad about his veto of the stem-cell bill. But I doubt it. I can't wait until January of 2009, when Bush will no longer be our president. Maybe the next president will help people by signing into law the embryonic stem-cell research bill. I sure hope so. June Shinn, Bellmawr - Published in the Courier Post - July 28, 2006

Bush in dark on stem cells

It does not surprise me in the least that our totally incapable president would quickly veto any bill that would lend support for the advancement of stem-cell research. Only someone so ignorant (despite his supposed education) would fail to see the enormous benefit to mankind that would emerge from this new and exciting field, with its promise of curing some of the worst afflictions ever to beset the human species.Imagine the possibility of one day eradicating Alzheimer's or reducing or eliminating the need for donor organs by using stem cells to create new hearts, lungs, etc. Why would anyone not acknowledge the tremendous possibilities to end so much suffering and death? For those who have a problem with the moral issues, is it more moral to deny people a chance to be disease-free, to alleviate unrelenting suffering, to gain new life and new hope?It is time to leave the Dark Ages behind once and for all. Sharon Hutchinson, Buena Vista Twp - Published in the Atlantic City Press July 26, 2006

Bush imposes his religion on us

President Bush's veto of the stem-cell funding bill is the ultimate triumph in his administration's war on science. The public, Congress, the courts and, above all, the law agree that human embryos are not human beings. It is one thing for the president (or you or me) to entertain his own odd religious beliefs; it is quite another to use his powerful office to impose those religious beliefs on the majority, to the detriment of all of us. According to all mainstream scientists, embryonic stem cells are the most promising direction for research into prevention, treatments and cures for many of the most dreadful conditions that afflict our generation and, more importantly, will afflict our children and grandchildren. It is most hypocritical that a president who shows no concern for the welfare of Americans in the areas of health-care coverage, veterans benefits and warfare should assault all of us in pandering to an extreme segment of his support group. We wait with bated breath for a time when science is left to scientists, medicine to doctors, and government to the enlightened. We shall suffer until then under Bush's Taliban-like rule. William E Ditmire, Galloway Twp - Published in the Atlantic City Press July 26, 2006

Yup, media hide truth about Iraq

President Bush and his supporters have complained that the media tend to focus on the bad news of bombings and killings in Iraq, and not on the good news from that country. They are right.For example, the media have ignored reports from Iraq that the Bush administration is building huge new military bases so that our troops can stay in Iraq indefinitely.This is good news because it means that someday, after all of the insurgents have been killed, Americans will be able to buy land in Iraq to build summer homes in an area with a climate similar to Las Vegas. Naturally, the casinos will follow.While Christian and Jewish settlers from America may not be welcomed initially, this will change when the current shortages of dependable electricity and water are eliminated and travel again becomes possible with the cheap gasoline that is plentiful in Iraq.Of course, the liberal American media don't want voters in the upcoming congressional elections to share in the vision of a home in what many believe is the site of the original Garden of Eden, because this might have an adverse effect on candidates who believe the best way to support our servicemen and women is to bring them home. Harold Clark, Egg Harbor Twp - Published in the Atlantic City Press July 26,2006

Does Bush really want bin Laden?

The CIA announced recently that the unit formed in the early 1990s to hunt for Osama bin Laden had been disbanded. The Bush administration no longer considers al-Qaida a hierarchical organization but instead many cells operating independently throughout the world. Therefore, the hunt for the person responsible for Sept. 11 was absorbed by a larger effort that looks at all jihadist organizations.Time seems to have softened President Bush's resolve. One has to wonder if he was ever serious about capturing bin Laden. There is the nagging question of not pressing coalition forces' advantage when bin Laden was cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora. Then, why start a second war against Iraq when the mission in Afghanistan was not completed? And now, why repeat the same rhetoric and preparation for war with Iran that preceded the war in Iraq?Until Bush accepts that U.S. occupation of Iraq detracts from the legitimacy of the elected government, the “stay the course” policy is doomed to failure. Too bad Bush can't see that being a facilitator might produce the results he seeks — being “occupier-in-chief” certainly has not. Nick Reina, Milmay - Published July 17, 2006 in the Atlantic City Press

Iraq looking like Vietnam

Is history repeating itself in the White House? in the 1970's, President Nixon asked the country to stay the course in Vietnam. He told us not to cut and run. Sound familiar? Vietnam and Iraq have many differences, but many similarities. We entered Vietnam because our ships were supposedly attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin; it was a lie. In Iraq, we were persuaded that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; that too was a lie. We are entering our fourth year in Iraq, and just as the Viet Cong, cruel beyong description, terrorized the South Vietnamese, the insurgents and al-Qaida are terrorizing our troops and the people of Iraq. We can't bring back our soldiers killed in Iraq or the thousands of innocent Iraqis, but we must find a way to stop the death toll. Nancy Woerner, Northfield - Published in the Atlantic City Press, July 12, 2006

Here's Why I Don't Fly Flag

Regarding the June 29 letter, “Where were flags on Flag Day?” in which the letter writer stated, “Shame on all of you who failed to honor America” by not flying the flag: I honestly thought about flying our flag, but considering the abominable condition our country is in, I decided to leave it in the drawer. I am quite certain that many citizens feel the same way I do, as only one flag flies on our block. At this time in history, most of us are not proud, flag-flying Americans.Am I supposed to be proud of a country whose government is slowly stripping us of the constitutional rights bestowed us by our forefathers? Proud of the 2,500-plus dead men and women who died in Iraq for nothing? Proud of a government so narrow-sighted that it spends billions of tax dollars on an illegal invasion of a county that never attacked us, yet ignores poverty and global warming?The shame does not fall on those of us who failed to fly the flag — the shame falls on the worst government in the history of the United States. If only more Americans would come out of their flag-flying comfort zone to see that our country is quickly sliding into a dictatorship where the voice of the people will not matter anymore.A small group of war-mongering, oil-rich Republicans is making decisions for all of us. They've taken away our basic right to privacy, and now our voting rights are on the chopping block. Once they're gone, our democracy is finished. Sorry, unfortunately I'm just not in a flag-flying state of mind lately. Bernadette Buckley, Atlantic City Published in the Atlantic City Press July 11, 2006.

Bad Outcome

There was scant media coverage of a vote the week of June 18 in the U.S. House of Representatives requiring the president to get prior congressional approval before carrying out military actions against Iran. The measure was defeated with the help of U.S. Reps. Frank LoBiondo, R-Ventnor, and Jim Saxton, R-Mount Holly. It is inconceivable anyone would again give this president the power to wage war without proper constitutional approval. President Bush has shown he cannot be trusted to exhaust diplomatic means to achieve solutions before taking us into an armed conflict. He proved this in his haste to wage war upon Iraq, which never posed an imminent threat, regardless of the many changing reasons given by the president. At a time when Afghanistan faces a strong resurgence of the Taliban and 1,000 Iraqis are dying each month from insurgent and coalition action, we can ill-afford to take on a third front. Iran has three times the population of Iraq and might totally deplete our military resources if attacked. I wonder if LoBiondo and Saxton have given any thought to how many more Muslims throughout the world would be eager to join the fight against another American invasion. It is clear to me that support for the Bush agenda has replaced reasoned judgment in the minds of our representatives. The logical solution seems to be to fire them this November and hire people who don't think of diplomacy as a four-letter word. Bettie J Reina, Milmay Published July 9, 2006 in the Courier Post

Think of Iraq as a patient

As a physician, I have been faced with situations in which a patient appeared feeling and looking quite sick. The signs of sickness were unmistakable, but the variety of studies done failed to yield a diagnosis. But my clinical judgment (translate: common sense) told me that the patient was sick, and that turned out to be correct.Now the question is whether the Iraq war is in a sick stage. Anyone with a sliver of common sense must acknowledge that events there are abysmal. The patient is very sick.If we do the tests, listen to President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and selected military personnel, we come away with the feeling that the patient isn't really very sick and, in fact, is on the road to recovery. We're on the verge of an absurdity.One question that is strictly avoided is, does the occupation make things worse rather than better? Would the insurgency begin to erode if we left?It is hard to believe that our leaders would grieve at the presumed chaos that would follow our departure. In terms of lives lost, we stood by silently while 800,000 were slaughtered in Rwanda, and we're standing by while 300,000 are dying off in Darfur.It seems evident that what we would lose would be control of the region (translate: oil). The mentality of our current leadership leads only to endless war, and mocking those who want to leave with the rhetoric “cut and run” is only a disgusting political ploy. Dr Joseph Linsk, Atlantic City Published in the Atlantic City Press July 7, 2006

Blame Bush not soldiers

To charge members of our military, especially the Marines, with murder is ludicrous and absurd when it is President Bush who is responsible for the lies, atrocities and the death and disfigurement of thousands of our soldiers as well as Iraqi civilians. Thanks to Bush and his equally clueless cronies, terrorism is on the rise as more radical groups regard our country with hate. His smug disregard for the truth of what madness he has created endangers our country more each day that this horrid war continues. Bush should be impeached and put on trial, not these young, innocent soldiers barely out of high school working under the greatest stress imaginable and forced to carry out orders from a White House that puts no value on their young lives. Support our troops — get rid of Bush. Toni Bracey, Egg Harbor Twp Published in the Atlantic City Press, July 7, 2006

GOP trying to distract us

How stupid does the Republican leadership in Washington think we are? We've got runaway debt, a quagmire in Iraq, a federal government listening to my phone calls, and they are wasting our time talking about such pressing issues as gay marriage, flag burning and treasonous newspapers.Pay attention, America. They are trying to distract you. If it rains, it's because Abe Lincoln is weeping in heaven. Jim Karlinski, Brigantine Published in the Atlantic City Press, July 7, 2006

LoBiondo Shows He Favors Rich

On June 22nd, Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-2nd, voted to drastically cut taxes on inherited estates. It's estimated that only 5,100 estates in the entire United States will be subject to taxation if this change becomes law. Opponents of the estate tax claim these assets have been already taxed. This is baloney because most of these assets are untaxed capital gains. The other argument is that the tax causes family farms and small businesses to be sold. The only problem is they can't name any families that were affected. In his press release, LoBiondo indicated he would like to remove the entire estate tax from the books so that even these 5,100 multi millionaires and billionaires can pass on this enormous amount wealth to their heirs. After all, how would little Johnny make his way in the world if he only inherited $50 million instead of $90 million? It's nice to know our elected representative is looking out for these people. Unfortunately, the rest of us will either have to pay more in taxes to make up for the $3 billion dollar hole this blows in the budget or watch our national debt rise even higher. You have to ask yourself - just who does this guy represent? James F. McCarthy, Ocean City Published in the Press of Atlantic City July 1, 2006