More evidence neededto justify attack on Iraq
The Bush administration is currently trying to justify the use of military force in Iraq to effect a change in the leadership of that nation. They are angered that Saddam Hussein may be developing weapons of mass destruction and fear that if left alone he may represent a danger to the U.S. and to his neighbors. However, their justification for the use of force to resolve these issues reveals a dangerous flaw in the leadership of the U.S.
The use of military intervention to solve any problem implies that peaceful means have been exhausted and that someone or something of value is in imminent danger. That is not the case with Iraq. According to the UN, by 1998 sanctions against Hussein's regime had caused the deaths of almost 1.2 million persons. These deaths are attributed to a lack of food and adequate health care. That means that in the 21st century, the United States of America can do no better than help enact policies that allow children to starve to death.
Are we prepared to commit ourselves to a war against the people of Iraq based on the evidence presented by the Bush administration? Have all other options been exhausted? The president himself has stated. "There's no telling how many wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland". Does that mean the foreign policy of the most powerful democracy on earth has been reduced to fighting war after war? Is there no one within the administration who can come up with a better solution to our problems?
We should demand more of our leaders. Their decisions carry a great deal of importance and they are not being made soundly. We should let them know there is no support for a war against Iraq based on the evidence provided thus far.
Jim's behind bars, but columnist can't let go
A few weeks ago I sat down at the computer and started to type a letter to the editor regarding the Bertram de Souza column on Mr. Traficant's hair. After venting most of my disgust while typing the letter, I counted to 10 and then hit the "delete" key.
Well it seems that Mr. de Souza is at it again. If I am not mistaken, Mr. de Souza has been trying to rid the Valley of Mr. Traficant for a very long time so that we might start a new era in valley politics. Yet even with Mr. Traficant behind bars it is The Vindicator columnist who can't let things go.
Could it be that without Jim Traficant, Bertram would have to come up with an original thought, a new bad guy to root out, and a new cause to justify his job?
Good candidates haveno need to fear free press
In addressing a letter to the editor that appeared in Sunday's paper, I feel compelled to remind the writer, and your readers, that truly good men have no reason to fear the press. I think that there may be too few good men willing to come forth and lead our community.
No one is perfect, but the public needs to become more cognizant and more wary of those who run for public office and those who already hold public office.
They represent us. Do we really want office holders who are less than honest, reliable, and willing to do the right thing when necessary? Do we really want to elect people who disregard our welfare and our wishes in favor of what is convenient for them personally? It's the responsibility of the press to make us aware of the qualifications of those who represent us at every level.
While I don't feel the need to know every detail of their lives, I do want to know if they are credible candidates, capable of representing the community, and willing to act in its best interests.