- The Washington Times - Sunday, June 15, 2003

No dissension between DIA, CIA

An Inside the Ring item (“Intelligence Wars,” Nation, Friday) states that “the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, recently locked horns with CIA Director George J. Tenet” over a signals intelligence matter. Such an assertion is baseless. Columnists Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough also suggest that there is a rift between Mr. Tenet and me over the chain of command and the role of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone. There is no such disagreement. As iterated by Mr. Cambone himself at his confirmation hearing in February, it is the responsibility of the director of central intelligence, Mr. Tenet, to manage the collection, analysis and dissemination of intelligence.

The professional men and women in DIA and CIA work hand in hand 365 days a year on intelligence issues affecting our country. The article trivializes the serious business these agencies are about and is a total misrepresentation. Had the reporters bothered to check with me, I would have corrected the inaccurate source reports and misperceptions.

VICE ADM. LOWELL E. JACOBY

U.S. Navy

Director, Defense Intelligence Agency

Washington

Righteous battle over Pryor

Nat Hentoff (“Red meat for Dems,” Op-Ed, Monday) takes up the scurrilous calumny of Democrats such as Sens. Charles Schumer and Patrick Leahy in judging Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor to be unsuitable for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds of strong religious and anti-ACLU statements. Most conservatives would agree with Mr. Pryor on both points. Mr. Hentoff objects to Mr. Pryor’s statement that “we derive our rights from God and not from government.” Yet Mr. Pryor merely mirrors the assertion of the Declaration of Independence that the people “are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” The point is essential to the conservative worldview. Our rights may be secured by government but do not flow from it.

The real issue ought to be Mr. Pryor’s jurisprudence, and here Mr. Hentoff offers no evidence that Mr. Pryor would rule from the bench in any way except as dictated by the law. Indeed, his character and integrity are our best guarantor of that. Mr. Hentoff’s real problem, I suspect, is that a committed Christian who is not ashamed to say so in public is just not his kind of fellow. Thus, he gives comfort to those Democrats who are determined to keep serious Christians off the court. This view is no surprise. The real puzzle is: Why is he writing for The Washington Times?

HOWARD HOLLEY

Barnet, Vt.

Expanded nuclear subsidies unfair and undesirable

I couldn’t disagree more with your editorial in support of expanded federal subsidies for the nuclear power industry (“A needed nuclear boost,” Editorials, Thursday). The narrow defeat of a bipartisan amendment to the Senate energy bill that proposed to strike federal financing for nuclear construction projects was a loss to consumers, taxpayers and the environment.

Even the first nuclear reactors did not require the level of taxpayer financing proposed by current Senate energy legislation. Nearly five decades and more than 100 reactors later, the nuclear industry should no longer need hand-holding. Extending these unparalleled subsidies to the nuclear industry would distort electricity markets, granting costly nuclear power an unfair and undesirable advantage over safe, clean energy alternatives. New nuclear power plants and the radioactive waste they generate would burden the public with expenses and potential liabilities while imposing additional safety and security threats.

Fiscally, environmentally and in terms of safety, promoting the construction of new nuclear reactors just doesn’t make sense — much like the Senate energy bill as a whole.

WENONAH HAUTER

Director

Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program

Washington

Turkish Cypriots should receive equal status

With reference to the article in the Embassy Row column (“Cyprus still a stalemate,” Briefing, Friday), I wish to point out that Foreign Minister George Iacovou does not represent the Turkish Cypriots or the whole of Cyprus, and the “reunification plan” that he discusses was not proposed by the United States but by the United Nations.

Furthermore, the Turkish Cypriots are not a “minority” but a legally and politically equal people in a two-nation island that has been their home for centuries. Efforts of the past four decades to create one state in Cyprus have failed because, for the Greek Cypriots, this has meant either getting rid of the Turkish Cypriots or, failing that, dominating or assimilating them.

The high-level reception bestowed upon Mr. Iacovou during his current trip to Washington, particularly when no similar opportunity has been given to the legitimate, democratically elected representatives of the Turkish Cypriot side, is neither fair nor constructive. It will only further harden the position of the Greek Cypriot administration, already at an all-time high because of its imminent unilateral admission to the European Union.

OSMAN ERTUG

Representative

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

Washington

Sanctions won’t fell Fidel

In the editorial “Fidel foiled” (Editorials, Wednesday), the author states, “Sadly, the United States had to abandon its attempt in May to condemn Mr. Castro at the Organization of American States due to lack of support.” My question is, does the writer really think that the OAS isolating Cuba will bring about what Washington wants and what some of the exiles in Miami desire: regime change in Cuba?

The answer is no. Those who oppose the government of Fidel Castro must realize that no matter how much pressure other countries put on the Cuban government or how bad the situation is on the island, the Cuban government is not going to be overthrown by the people of Cuba. The United States, with its economic blockade that has lasted 44 years, has failed to create regime change. In fact, it has done nothing but hurt the lives of Cubans and make them support the revolution even more. Even when life on the island was miserable after the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc fell, the people of Cuba did not attempt to remove the government. In my opinion, if the people of Cuba were going to overthrow Fidel, it would have happened in the 1980s, when the government armed the entire population in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion.

In summary, Fidel has been in power for 44 years. Cuba has had many ups and downs during that period. However, the overwhelming majority’s support for Fidel and the revolution has remained constant. If one thinks that the OAS isolating Cuba will put an end to the revolution, he should study Cuban politics again.

NEIL M. BARCLAY

Baltimore

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide