Letters to the Editor

One year earlier

President Lincoln signed the D.C. Emancipation Act on April 16, 1862, not in 1863 as stated in your article (Briefly, Metropolitan, Saturday).

The Emancipation Proclamation (for the states in secession) was signed on Jan. 1, 1863, as a matter of military necessity and in celebration of the Union Army’s first “victory”over Gen. Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, at Antietam, on Sept. 17, 1862. That battle was fought to a standstill, but Lee recrossed the Potomac the following night, Sept. 18, 1862.

RICHARD G. AMATO

Washington

A confused candidate

If Sen. John Kerry truly believes, as he claims, that “life does begin at conception” (“Double standard,” Inside Politics, Nation, Friday), his March vote against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, also known as Laci and Conner’s Law, is inexplicable.

What seems more likely is that, once again, Mr. Kerry is trying to be on all sides of every issue. In this era of suicidal terrorism and threats of weapons of mass destruction, we can’t afford to elect a president whose moral compass spins like a boat caught in the Bermuda Triangle.

Mr. Kerry’s choice for vice president, Sen. John Edwards, also cast his vote against Laci and Conner’s Law.

JAMES TERPENING

Richmond

One size does not fit all

Deborah Simmons’ Op-Ed column in Friday’s Washington Times concerning the recent remarks by Bill Cosby was right on the money (“Heard the one about …?”). Though his audience represented a wide variety of America, his comments were directed at the black community.

The rest of us should not rest too easy, however, because the problems are more widespread than that. Children can’t read; they certainly can’t write; they aren’t much interested in thinking; and if I can use my grandchildren as examples, they would much rather sit in front of the idiot box with an Xbox game than do homework.

What can we do about it? Probably not much as long as the teachers unions are more interested in their own welfare than that of the students they teach. In my opinion, the national unions and the Department of Education should all be abolished and the education of children returned to the local level.

In this case, one size does not fit all. Local people are in a much better position to know what needs to be done and to demand and implement the changes necessary to get children reading again, get them to learn more math and get them to learn to write an intelligent paragraph. Plus, their interests are much closer to home.

Mr. Cosby identified the problems, but didn’t provide much in the way of solutions — but then, who does these days? Just throw more money at it.

CURT STENDE

Bowie

Helpful hindsight

The Senate report that the CIA erred in evaluating Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and capability to produce them absolves the Bush administration of claims it exaggerated the threat (“CIA blamed for bad data on Iraq arms,” Page 1, Saturday). Besides, no president in his right mind would go to war and put American and Iraqi lives in harm’s way without any justifiable basis.

Yet Sen. John Kerry still insists that President Bush misled the American people and rushed to war.

What would Mr. Kerry have done if he were president and given the CIA intelligence? Would he have thought he had the luxury of time to get France and Germany aboard in an imaginary coalition before moving against Saddam and just waited for another devastating attack like those of September 11?

Or, with 20-20 hindsight, would he rather that Saddam remain in power?

FRANK WENCESLAO

Norwalk, Calif.

French contributions

To Rep. Curt Weldon: In your Op-Ed column in The Washington Times on July 7 (“Friend or foe?”), you suggest that French President Jacques Chirac has vetoed the use of NATO forces in Afghanistan and refused to train Iraqi forces. Before respectfully correcting these false assertions, I must state that France is a strong NATO partner and a close ally of the United States.

France is paying special attention to the electoral process in Afghanistan and stands ready to contribute its share toward the reinforcement of NATO capacities in order to ensure a secure environment for the elections. Beginning Aug. 1, French Lt. Gen. Jean-Louis Py will assume command of the NATO force in and around Kabul. At the same time, we will raise the level of our troops to 1,000.

France thus will be the United States’ second-largest partner in Afghanistan, with a total of 1,470 French troops. Our troops, together with America’s, are training the Afghan army. France also is participating in Operation Enduring Freedom, through 200 special forces troopers fighting alongside American troops against the remnants of the Taliban and through the French naval contribution to the operation.

This is no surprise, considering that France has been on the U.S. side from the start in Afghanistan. Since Oct. 21, 2001, French reconnaissance aircraft and air tankers have contributed to the air campaign over Afghanistan. They were reinforced between the winter of 2001 and the summer of 2002 by French naval aviation forces and French air force transport planes and fighters. Indeed, France was the only country, along with the United States, to have flown bombing missions over Afghanistan in direct support of American ground troops, in particular during Operation Anaconda. French forces arrived on the ground as early as Dec. 2, 2001, securing Mazar-e-Sharif. In total, some 5,500 French service members were sent to the region.

What Mr. Chirac stated in Istanbul, Turkey, regarding the use of NATO rapid-reaction forces is a matter of principle: The NATO Response Force was created to address emergency situations and should stand ready to do so. In the dangerous world in which we live, we cannot predict where or when such a crisis might occur. The upcoming elections in Afghanistan are an anticipated event. We should not risk not having the appropriate tool to confront future crises because we would have used it in a non-crisis situation elsewhere.

Regarding Iraq, an agreement was reached in Brussels, even before Istanbul, on NATO assistance in the training of Iraqi forces. My country has offered to the Iraqi prime minister to train Iraqi military police (such as our gendarmerie). Also, as you know, NATO already has a presence in Iraq, assisting Poland. France has agreed to this NATO contribution.

There also was an agreement during NATO’s summit in Istanbul to offer assistance to the Iraqi government with the training of its security forces, and France was part of that decision, like all other NATO allies. NATO’s military experts soon will report to member states on this issue, and we will then be able to assess what could be the added value and the content of such assistance.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that with about 4,000 troops, France is the third-largest contributor to NATO operations, after Germany and Italy and ahead of the United States (3,000).

JEAN-DAVID LEVITTE

Ambassador of France

Washington