Letters to the Editor of The New York Times

May 3, 2007

The War Bill: Lines in the Sand (9 Letters)

To the Editor:

Re “Bush Vetoes Bill Tying Iraq Funds to Exit Schedule” (front page, May 2):

The most responsible action we could take in the Iraq war is to end it immediately. There is no prescription or timetable for victory. It is not clear why the nation needs a victory other than the one we have achieved already, which is to have gotten rid of a dangerous dictator. We don’t often do that in any case, much less fight a war for it.

We need to get on with a domestic energy policy, use the money we will otherwise waste in Iraq to further energy technology at home, and bring the troops home immediately.

Congress should not pass any spending bill, should undercut the ability of the troops to remain, and bring them home to safety now. That would perfectly express the will of the voters.

Eugene Gordon
Dover, N.J., May 2, 2007

•

To the Editor:

An alternative and more accurate description of the Democrats’ vetoed bill is that it forces the elected Iraqi government to prepare for a United States withdrawal on a timetable that we, not they, determine.

If, as many believe, the Iraqis’ maintenance of the infrastructure we built and the adequacy of Iraqi troops we are trying to train and mobilize is dilatory, notice of our withdrawal timetable would not be a signal to enemy terrorists but to Iraqi officials.

David L. Oshin
Scottsdale, Ariz., May 2, 2007

•

To the Editor:

As President Bush signed his second veto, you note another seven “Names of the Dead,” for a total of 3,344. How many more brave men and women must die before the president and his Congressional allies finally realize that having no exit strategy and no firm benchmarks is the real “prescription for chaos and confusion” in Iraq that marks the ultimate failure of the administration?

The president’s continued insistence on a blank check for financing the war after four years is itself completely “irresponsible” and totally unacceptable.

Paul M. Wortman
Setauket, N.Y., May 2, 2007

•

To the Editor:

The president complains that Congress is trying to do his job as military commander in chief for him. If this upsets him, he should do his job himself, and offer well-defined goals for Iraq with specific target dates.

Setting a timeline with clear goals is not “artificial.” It is leadership.

Paul Cantrell
Minneapolis, May 2, 2007

•

To the Editor:

So the president signs his order using a pen given to him by the father of a fallen marine. How facile this vainglorious White House is, putting evocative symbols before the public, trading on Americans’ politeness and compassion — and how utterly shameless and hypocritical.

Whether it’s posing next to a disabled veteran, a widowed spouse, a disaster victim, a ghetto child, a senior or the bereft parents of a soldier killed in his still-inexplicable failing vanity war in Iraq, President Bush puts form over substance every time. He has served none of the victims with whom he purports to grieve and pray. His obliviousness is the stuff of deposed kings.

Mark Miller
Los Angeles, May 2, 2007

•

To the Editor:

President Bush defended his veto of the Iraq war spending bill on Tuesday by stating that commanders in Iraq should not be taking “fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C.”

Has the president forgotten that as commander in chief of the armed forces, he is also a politician in Washington, D.C., giving fighting directions to commanders in Iraq 6,000 miles away?

Civilian control of our military is one of the most firmly embedded traditions of our democratic system. And civilian control has always meant control by politicians in Washington, in most cases far from the front lines.

The problem with President Bush’s current position is that he is shirking his responsibilities as commander in chief. Whether President Bush likes it or not, the decision of whether our country should continue the current campaign in Iraq is not and should not be with the commanders in Iraq. That decision rests quite properly with politicians in Washington.

Jorge L. Baron
Seattle, May 2, 2007

•

To the Editor:

Re “The Hail Mary Pass” (column, May 2):

I enjoyed Thomas L. Friedman’s fantasy of a speech that President Bush should give to the regional conference in Egypt, an apology for his failed policies in Iraq with a productive and cooperative look forward.

In the final analysis, though, it will always be a wish and not a reality because all the president has left is his unshakable resolve, itself locked and lost in fantasy.

Bonnie Hyken
Morristown, N.J., May 2, 2007

•

To the Editor:

The speech that Thomas L. Friedman would write for President Bush would, sadly, fall upon deaf ears in the Arab world and in much of Europe, China and Russia for the simple reason that the Bush administration has arrogantly or ineptly bungled and bounced from one failure to another.

Whether it be the period before the invasion or the execution of the war, international relations and global politics, or domestic disaster relief, few observers could place much confidence or trust in this administration.

Any meaningful change in the dynamic of the Middle East must begin with Republican members of Congress who fear not only their party’s fate, but also for the security of the country on the Bush watch.

It is time for them to come off the fence to solve the problems the president has created.

D. C. Montague
Chattanooga, Tenn., May 2, 2007

•

To the Editor:

Re Thomas L. Friedman’s May 2 column:

If only. Thanks at least for letting us imagine for a moment that we have a president who can admit his mistakes, take responsibility for them, appeal to people’s better instincts, and ask for the help he needs.

Wouldn’t that be something?

David Shack
New York, May 2, 2007