U.S. can't export democracy

Neither President Bush nor any of his predecessors have brought themselves or the nation to the full implementation of the theory of democracy. The person generally considered the principal exponent of the theory, President Thomas Jefferson, was himself a slave owner. As a consequence, this nation has followed a pattern of gross inequities against some of its citizens during the two centuries during which it has existed. Now we have been led into a draining conflict that immerses us in the controversies which flow from radical groups. We are not contending with a nation, but battling Islamic terrorists, thugs and criminals. Bush offers democracy to other nations but he is offering a flawed product. Those nations are aware of the failings of democracy in America. A new class We need, however, to understand a danger that is more threatening than Islamic terrorists. The inequities, which have been a constant in America, have brought us to an inevitable circumstance. A class of people has taken shape who are devoid of hope and who care little about what we call American values. To these people the only question is: "How do I survive?" They are prepared to do whatever they need to do, legal or not, to be able to function. Many of the millions in our prisons are persons of this stripe and tens of thousands, not yet apprehended, are doing great damage in our larger cities and smaller-sized metro areas. Crime is rampant, yet we are spending billions of dollars in a futile effort to alter centuries-old religious differences in the Middle East. How much better that money could be spent in strengthening our damaged national fabric. Two helpful experiences from our history can direct us: In his farewell address as president, George Washington warned us to "avoid foreign entanglements" (what are we doing in the midst of Shias, Sunnis and Kurds?) and the Constitution promises to "provide for the general welfare" which has nothing to do with emergency funds but addresses the well-being of our people. Calvin D. Banks, Lindenwold - Courier Post, December 31, 2006

Face reality

I think former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation was long overdue. The course the president should take is to admit the war in Iraq is a quagmire and get all of the troops out as fast as possible. Bush's slogans -- "stay the course," "don't cut and run" and "mission accomplished" -- are worn out. Do they help the 3,000 young lives sacrificed in a super blunder. As U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said, "It's the wrong place, it's the wrong time and the wrong war." Former anti-terror adviser Richard E. Clarke said in his book that on Sept. 12, 2001, the president called a Cabinet meeting and the first thing he said was "Let's attack Iraq." Clarke later quit in amazement. Osama bin Laden was running all over Afghanistan and Bush wanted to introduce democracy into Iraq. The Middle East countries have been living under monarchies for five centuries and now the president wants to jam democracy down their throats. The situation in Iraq is utter chaos. Religious civil war reigns. The more turmoil the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds create, the more they want to put on the onus of the U.S. presence there. The United States is not prepared there, using the National Guard and Reserve troops. Leave now. We gave no solution to the Iraqi people. Charles W. Miller, Jr., Mount Ephraim - Courier Post, December 29, 2006

Tragedy grows, as war drags on

As the war in Iraq drags on with ever-increasing American and Iraqi casualties, two things are ever present in my mind. One is the image of our president standing on the aircraft carrier with a huge sign behind him that read “Mission Accomplished.” Exactly what mission has been accomplished? Is Iraq a stable democracy? Has Osama bin Laden been found and imprisoned? Are our young men and women coming home? The answer is obviously no. Second, does anyone else sense the similarities between Iraq and Vietnam? As George Santayana brilliantly put it, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Obviously, President Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld did not do too well in U.S. history or, for that matter, in world history. Vietnam was a horrible killing field where more than 50,000 of our best and brightest died. Was Vietnam turned into a democracy? Hardly. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were hellbent on invading Iraq simply because the first President Bush conducted a limited war and Saddam Hussein was not taken out of power. That's it — nothing else. I pray every day that some way can be found out of this immoral and costly war and no more young Americans need die to satisfy the egos of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Sally Wayton, Linwood - Atlantic City Press, December 29, 2006

Don't increase troops in Iraq

No more American troops for Iraq, please. We recently tried adding thousands of troops to Baghdad in Operation Together Forward, and it made the situation worse, with a 43 percent increase in violence toward American troops. Adding more troops makes no sense whatsoever. By continuing to support this war in Iraq, we are making our country weaker. I am sure Iran and China are cheering us on as we go deeper and deeper into debt and deplete our military resources. We need to get smart by getting out of Iraq, putting our money into bolstering our degraded military might and going back to putting diplomacy before war. Pat Heller, Mays Landing - Atlantic City Press, December 28, 2006

Elections told Bush to Bring troops home

As I read the daily newspapers, I look for reports on President Bush's latest thoughts on the war in Iraq. I was very much encouraged when Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld resigned right after the November elections and Mr. Bush vowed to work with the newly elected Democratic majority in Congress, something he avoided when his own party ruled. But the further we get from the election, the more Mr. Bush resorts to pre-election rhetoric. Most troubling is a recent Associated Press article which reports that Mr. Bush interprets the midterm elections as reflecting the voters' desires to finish the mission in Iraq, another way of saying "stay the course." Everybody else seems to think that the elections meant, "Bring our people home." Mr. Bush missed the point that the insurgency began just days after he announced that coalition forces led by the United States would be remaining as occupiers and Iraqis would be governed by an American-led coalition provisional authority. Also, that the insurgency gained momentum every time innocent civilians were killed in the crossfire with enemy combatants, prisoners were tortured and killed, or property was needlessly destroyed in house-to- house sweeps. Refusing to face the reality that it is our very presence in their country that is so abhorrent, Mr. Bush is now hinting at sending tens of thousands more Americans into Baghdad to secure that troubled city, something he should have done in 2003. Perhaps Mr. Bush should listen to those who advise him to seek diplomatic solutions to problems he has been unable to resolve with the most powerful military in the world. I'm sure that the families of the soldiers not placed in harm's way will be grateful. Nick Reina, Milmay - Daily Journal, December 27, 2006

Now, Bush takes his time?

In March of 2003, President Bush was in such a hurry to invade Iraq he could not give Hans Blix, the international weapons inspector, two months to verify whether Saddam Hussein had WMD's. Now in December of 2006 when over 130 Iraqis are dying daily, over 100 Americans are dying every month, and we are spending a whopping $2 billion a week he insists that he needs to take his time to make the right decision. By the end of 2006 we will have lost as many Americans in Iraq as were killed on 9/11. Mr. Bush who, contrary to the evidence, continues to insist that al Qaeda is the main cause of our problems seems oblivious to the daily sectarian kidnappings and execution style slayings that the Sunnis and Shiites perpetrate upon each other. But those same Iraqis are willing to put aside their differences in order to kill Americans with weapons that were stolen after the fall of Baghdad. There seems to be no limit to the sacrifices Mr. Bush is willing to require of Americans in order to protect his failing presidency. Nick Reina, Milmay - Atlantic City Press, December 25, 2006

Now's the time to leave Iraq

So now President Bush is employing further delay tactics in Iraq exit plans until 2007. How many commissions, committees, how much military input, and who else does he need to advise him to come to a decision about this grave matter? The American peopla gave a blatant message in the last election that bringing democracy to the Middle East by force was a big mistake, and that an expeditious exit plan is imperative. The formost reason to leave is to save American lives, and the second is to diminish the increasing horrendous debt on taxpayers. The Democratic Party won a huge election on this grave issue, and it behooves the Democrats to act on the mandate to work quickly toward ending violence and supporting peace in the Middle East. Yew, we have to help repair the damage to Iraq, but the people have to work out their political system, however drastic it may be. They will not do it when the United States is trying to control their affairs. Citizens need to contact their representative in Washington to counteract any more footdragging by the president. Betty Canderan, John Canderan, Cape May Court House - Atlantic City Press, December 22, 2006

We the people

Even the definitely conservative-leaning Iraq Study Group recommended "a robust diplomatic effort to establish an international support structure intended to stabilize Iraq and ease tensions in other countries in the region." The study group wants the United States to employ broad regional diplomacy (including Iran and Syria in the region) as a necessary step toward bringing our troops home from Iraq. To me, that doesn't sound like something President Bush would be inclined to do, but, as the study group said, it is necessary before our troops can be brought home. What is needed is for Congress and we the people to hold Bush's feet to the fire and make him do something that is right for the country for once. That is why we the people gave the Democrats majorities in the House and Senate in the last election. If Congress doesn't act quickly, then we the people must act and hold Congress' feet to the fire. They work for us; we should make them act like they know they do. George Hunt, Maple Shade - Courier Post, December 19, 2006

Dems' election signals opening in health care

The Democrats have retaken control of both houses of Congress after more then 12 years, and they now have the unique opportunity to develop a solution to the health care crisis. And they may get some help from unlikely sources. Just two weeks ago, a coalition of health care insurance payers offered a proposal called "America's Heath Insurance Plans." That plan would blend certain aspects of a universal health care plan favored by Democrats, and which some Republicans have also favored, with some other industry offerings designed to begin the process of providing health care coverage to the nearly 50 million people in our nation who don't have it. Of that 50 million, more than 80 percent go to work. The proposal telegraphs a willingness to create a plan that would provide coverage for all uninsured children within the first three years and for all uninsured adults within 10. It is short on specifics and there's much work to do, as it only addresses one aspect of the health care crisis, albeit, a critical aspect. That aspect is the lack of health insurance coverage for those nearly 50 million Americans. The other part of the crisis is the skyrocketing cost of health care coverage in general, and the rising contributions that working men and women are required to make to keep the coverage they have. Chip Gerrity, President of NJ IBEW, Hightstown - Daily Journal, December 15, 2006

But LoBiondo won't have to use Medicae D

I can understand why Congressman Frank LoBiondo thinks Medicare D is so great (DJ-Nov. 29), because he doesn't have to use it and probably never will. He thinks seniors should wade through 40 different programs to find one that fits their needs. Believe me, it is hard enough just to go through two or three. Medicare D is fine when you are only paying $5 to $55 per prescription. But then you reach the "doughnut hole," which can come pretty fast if you are on a lot of expensive medications, and most of them are expensive. What they don't tell you when you sign up is that it is not the price you pay for a prescription that counts, but the actual list price of the drug that goes toward your $2,200 or $2,500 allotment. Once you reach the doughnut hole, you will have to pay full price until you've spent $3,200 out of pocket. How many people are going to be able to afford to pay more than $100 each for their prescriptions? Not too many. Whoever came up with the doughnut hole idea has holes in his head. They act like they are giving you something, but they are not. We will be paying $95 towards Medicare, $30 for Medicare D, plus whatever your prescription costs. Anyone who takes a lot of medication knows what I am talking about. The people who are fortunate enough to have prescription coverage, plus medical coverage, and eye and dental care ought to get down on their knees and thank all of us who contribute to their well being. People who have this kind of coverage do not realize what it costs for those who have to pay their own way. Some Medigap policies cost more than $300 a month, too. Medicare is a great help, but it does not pay for everything. I just wish these people who complain about not making enough money, but who have all these benefits given to them, would realize how much those benefits are worth. Edith Nightlinger , Millville - Daily Journal, December 14, 2006

Draft would focus public's attention

Regarding Michael Goodwin's Dec. 4 column, “Rangel's reasons are wrong — but draft's a good idea”: There's much to be said for compulsory national service of some kind for the able-bodied young. But advocates like Rep. Charles Rangel and Goodwin, who urge the restoration of the military draft, tend to do so for reasons that fall short of the most compelling one. The one compelling reason for reinstituting the military draft is that it would concentrate national attention on the glib posturings of our war-mongering leaders with a steelier eye than is now brought to bear on them. If every family in the country were compelled to provide cannon fodder for frivolous adventuring, our elected leaders might think longer before lighting the cannon's fuse. Dan MacNeice, Cologne - Atlantic City Press, December 13, 2006

Share the wealth

God bless America. The federal government has improved the lot of the neediest among us. They are no longer "hungry," they are "food insecure." Their numbers grew from 33.6 million in 2001 to 38.2 million in 2004. Trending the growth through 2006 would increase their number to 41.3 million people going to bed every night hungry. President Bush continues to insist that our economy is healthy and his tax cuts are working and should be made permanent. I am glad for those companies that are making record profits and the people earning a million dollars a year whose tax cuts allow then to buy a new $45,000 car every year. Yet, since 2001, we have seen a marked increase in the number of poor, homeless, uninsured, personal and national debt, college tuition, interest on student loans, foreclosures and bankruptcy filings. The economy is never healthy enough to raise the minimum wage. One can only hope that the new Democratic Congress will take notice of statistics that have been ignored by the current administration and work for an equitable distribution of wealth so that the promise of America is realized by more of those who are working hard to achieve it. I also look forward to more transparency in government, true sharing of ideas without "treason" labels being attached to those who disagree and a return to supporting the Constitution -- not the president. Nick Reina, Milmay - Courier Post, December 7, 2006

Case to impeach

What is more important to the health of our democracy: bipartisanship or accountability? Are we a nation of laws or men? Has the Constitution, that which our elected leaders swear to protect and defend, become a hindrance in the modern world and need to be replaced with a more dictatorial contract with Americans? Public support for impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney is growing. Will the new leader of the House of Representatives ignore the public sentiment and the results of the past election and the remedies provided by the authors of the Constitution in order to promote business as usual in the country club atmosphere that exists in the insular world of Washington? Bipartisanship has been a nonstarter for six years now. The case for impeachment should be quite clear for all: Lying to start an illegal war in violation of international laws and treaties, the arrest and detention of American citizens without charge, violations of the conventions against torture, the issuance of hundreds of signing statements to ignore laws passed by Congress, and so on. Will the new speaker of the House be the enabler of continued lawlessness and the degradation of our founding document? Impeachment is in order. Without the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we become no more than a banana republic. Wake up, America. If leaders refuse to uphold the law and the people let them get away with it, then we Americans will indeed get the government we deserve. Roy Lehman, Woolwich - Courier Post, December 7, 2006

Congress must rein in Bush

The history of the last four years has proven that the Bush administration cooked intelligence and lied to obtain the original Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, which was then immediately abused to launch an unprovoked and unwarranted invasion and indefinite occupation of Iraq. Yet even as the strategic disaster in Iraq lurches further out of control day by day, the Bush administration is still talking about even more irrational plans to light a bigger powder keg in Iran. As reported by Seymour Hersh, Cheney arrogantly stated just before the elections that even were the Democrats to take back the Congress, they would find some way around any legislative restrictions to pursue their insanity option in Iran. Well, we did take back Congress. And the first thing Congress must do to reassert adult control over the petulant White House is to cancel the 2001 AUMF. Not only was it used to justify preemptive imperialism in Iraq, it has been trotted out incessantly since to excuse the illegal domestic wiretaps, the program of torture and secret detentions in violation of the Geneva convention, and every other manner of defiance of Congress and the federal courts since. It was not an authorization to unilaterally violate the Constitution, but it has been taken as such, and accordingly, it must go. A simple majority of Congress is all that is required to restore the appropriate and just balance of powers, to at least require the executive to have the express consent of Congress before any ill-advised new military misadventure. Only withdrawing the AUMF can send a message that foreign policy run amok will no longer be the order of the day. Bob Salsburg, Northfield - Atlantic City Press, December 5, 2006

Dems' takeover signals workers' deep discontent

The Democratic victories in Washington in this year's election are telegraphing to the new Congress the dissatisfaction the Americans feel on a number of issues. I believe one of the critical areas that the Democratic Congress must now address are the ongoing assaults by the Bush administration against workers, including trade agreements that destroy American jobs and force more and more people out of the middle class; huge tax breaks to multi-billion dollar companies that are political contributors; the lack of a substantive national health care policy, and the outright gorilla tactics used to devastate the ability of working men and women to organize by gutting many of the hard-fought rights gained via the National Labor Relations Board. The Democrats should realize that they have not been given a mandate. Instead, the American people have given the Democrats an opportunity to demonstrate that they can lead by moving the country forward, in the center and with an agenda that protects working class Americans who are increasingly being squeezed from the middle class that they struggled so hard to enter. Chip Gerrity, President, NJ IBEW, Hightstown - Daily Journal, December 1, 2006