- The Washington Times - Saturday, May 17, 2003

Memo to Moose

So now the next stage begins in the life of the once and, perhaps, future famous Montgomery County Police Chief Charles “It Would Not Be Appropriate” Moose: the ever-popular lawsuit (“Moose files suit against county,” Metropolitan, Thursday).

Again, as before, his attorney is claiming his client’s constitutional rights are being violated because the county ethics committee has determined that Chief Moose cannot write a book about the sniper case.

Well, to be accurate, he can write a book about his experience. It’s just that he cannot earn money from it, per a stipulation he agreed to before accepting his job. Of course, that was before anyone offered him the chance to make big bucks. Amazing.

Montgomery County should make Chief Moose another offer: Get back to work and drop the suit, or find another place to work. A deal’s a deal.



Refighting 1948

William G. Garrett’s letter claiming that the 1948 Arab-Israeli war was anything but a war of survival for the Jewish state is pure fiction (“War for survival or Lebensraum?” Thursday). So are his allegations that the United Nations “gave 55 percent of Palestine away to form the Jewish state” and that Arabs were “butchered” by Israelis at Deir Yassin.

In 1922, despite the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate, which intended the whole of Palestine as a Jewish state, the British gave 80 percent of the mandate land to Jordan. In 1947, the United Nations partitioned the remaining 20 percent into a Jewish and an Arab state. This was not good enough for the Arabs. Five Arabs nations attacked Israel, and it is well documented that the Arabs in Israel who left in 1948 did so at the urging of Arab leaders who believed their presence would impede the war to wipe out the new Jewish state.

As for the village of Deir Yassin, it overlooked the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv road and was being used by Arab soldiers to attack Israeli convoys during the 1948 Arab siege of western Jerusalem. It was a legitimate military target.

In a 1987 report, the Arab Bir Zeit University admitted that any massacre charge was a hoax. The report acknowledged that the dead were almost all soldiers and that even those numbers were exaggerated by Arab authorities and the departing British. It is ironic, as subsequently admitted by Arab spokesmen, that the false massacre charges contributed to frightened Arabs fleeing the country.

If not for the Arab rejection of the 1947 U.N. partition resolution and the 1948 Arab invasion of Israel, Arabs would not have left their villages, there would be no refugees and there already would have been an Arab state.



Brandeis District

Zionist Organization of America


Badge of dishonor

I am writing to express my outrage at the Robert E. Lee Council of the Boy Scouts of America for voting to remove Lee’s name from their patches (“Scouts’ change of patch criticized,” Metropolitan, Thursday). This politically correct effort to purge our society of everything that someone might find offensive must stop. Robert E. Lee has long been considered a great man. When it comes to honor and integrity, I can think of no one better for Scouts of all races to emulate.

Those who attack anything Confederate fail to realize that under federal law, those who fought for the Confederacy are considered U.S. military veterans and were entitled to all according honors. In other words, this means Confederate veterans are American veterans representing courage, self-sacrifice and patriotism.

As a veteran myself, I am outraged whenever one group of veterans is disparaged. If this cultural genocide does not stop, I can honestly see that somewhere in the future, veterans of other wars will be similarly disparaged. Fifty years from now, some people might demand the Vietnam War Memorial be torn down because it honors losers in a very unpopular war.

People might scoff at this idea now, but people would have done the same 50 years ago if you told them how Confederate heritage — and some of America’s greatest heroes — would be under attack.



Col. William Norris Camp No. 1398

Sons of Confederate Veterans

Hagerstown, Md.

Arlington stadium uproar

The article “Ballpark sites troubling Virginia” (Sports, Wednesday) gave little idea of the depth and breadth of objection to stadium construction in Arlington County. To say that the No Arlington Stadium Coalition continues “to gather members and support” scantly reflects the outrage and amazement I hear whenever any Arlington resident is made aware of the issues.

Because the Virginia Baseball Stadium Authority and its supporters have operated as far under the radar as possible, only unveiling the details of their plans in March, quite a few Arlington residents are not aware of the locations projected and the taxpayer boondoggle involved. Numerous times, I have mentioned the stadium plans and heard responses such as “They won’t really do that … it won’t work… it would be crazy … where were they talking, somewhere around Twin Bridges?”

I tell my fellow residents that very specific plans are on the table for placing a stadium either directly across from the Pentagon or on sites that would require tearing down a 300-unit residential complex or a heavily patronized shopping block. I tell them that the stadium supporters propose a financing plan that would involve close to $300 million in state revenue bonds. I tell them that these plans are being promoted with complete disdain for the inevitable hardship on commuters, Arlington taxpayers, and local residents by people who scoff at the idea that a 42,000-seat stadium could possibly complicate already gridlocked traffic, reduce neighborhood livability or pose a security risk. I tell them that the stadium plans include only vague and inadequate commitments about parking and make no allowance for the stresses the park would place on local infrastructure and public agencies.

The usual response I get is: “Where can I sign up to protest against this?” Arlington’s Civic Federation did exactly that last week, voting 75-27 against any public support for the stadium pushers. We listened to pro-stadium arguments that flew in the face of economic experience all over the nation; that insulted our intelligence by characterizing the nearby Pentagon and Arlington National Cemetery as symbols of “war and death” that should be offset by something “living and vibrant”; and that tried to evoke pity for poor, oppressed parents who have to drive to Baltimore to take their children to a game.

Arlington needs a stadium like a fish needs a bicycle, and the crushing majority of people here will tell you so. Do us a favor and run future coverage where it will be read by people who value quality of life above access to spectator sports.



Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide