Letters to the Editor

In Canada, a policy winner

I am writing to dispute the “Canada vs. the U.S.” Commentary column written by Richard W. Rahn (Thursday). Most of what Mr. Rahn has written is true. However, he is very selective in his criticisms of my fine country, Canada.

To use the notoriously far-right Fraser Institute as his main source of facts is very misleading to your readers. Canadians, in great numbers, enjoy and endorse our public health system. Canadian politicians have long abandoned promoting anything but universal health insurance because they know they would never get elected on such a platform.

I (and my family) have never waited for medical service when there has been a critical need. Nobody dies in Canada as a result of a waiting list. To suggest such a thing directly or indirectly is misleading. It is a well-documented fact that Canadians, on average, live longer than our American neighbors.

If a Canadian collapses on a street corner in Canada, that person is rushed to the nearest hospital. There is never any concern about insurance coverage; there are zero co-payments or deductibles. When the person leaves the hospital, he is not handed a bill or a pile of insurance forms to submit. The health of the patient is the primary concern, not the billing department.

Americans are free to keep the insanely expensive system that lets tens of millions of its citizens fall through the cracks. We in Canada know better. Medical services in Canada are a right, not a privilege, and we like it that way.

ROBERT FOWLER

St. Catharines, Ontario

A partisan affair

Three cheers for Condoleezza Rice (“Al Qaeda a target early, Rice says,” Page 1, Friday).

Despite the disgruntled Richard A. Clarke’s attempt to sell his book, I agree with Miss Rice. President Bush has done a thousand times more for U.S. security than President Clinton did. While Mr. Clinton did not even retaliate for the first World Trade Center attack or the attack on the USS Cole, Mr. Bush has confronted both al Qaeda and Iraq militarily, diplomatically, financially and legally. In addition, he created the Department of Homeland Security, which facilitates the sharing of information among federal agencies.

I was impressed by Miss Rice’s knowledge, insight and poise. In contrast, the members of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (September 11 commission) were rude and sarcastic. They interrupted her frequently. They even called her “Dr. Clarke,” then talked over her as she attempted to give her correct name. Good-naturedly, she smiled and said, “I don’t think I look like Dick Clarke.”

JEFFREY P. JAROSZ

Baltimore

•

During Condoleezza Rice’s testimony, all you heard from the “nonpartisan” Democrats was about the Aug. 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB). You could see the joy in their belief that they had the Bush administration backed against the wall.

Richard Ben-Veniste asked Miss Rice if the PDB warned of attacks against us at home and what the title of this PDB was. Before she could answer, she was rudely cut off after giving the title, “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.”

This PDB was put together because the president was inquiring about al Qaeda threats at home.

During Richard A. Clarke’s testimony, he was asked if September 11 would have been prevented had Mr. Bush put Mr. Clarke’s plans into effect. He said no.

Miss Rice was asked if September 11 would have been prevented had the Bush administration’s plan from Sept. 4, 2001, been put into place four months earlier. She said no.

So, it took the September 11 commission and our bickering over blame on the world stage to find out that the attacks would not have been prevented unless we had done something that no one even had recommend that we do.

JASON VANZIN

Bridgeville, Pa.

•

I do not appreciate the grandstanding that has been done by Democratic members of the September 11 commission, especially that of Richard Ben-Veniste and Bob Kerrey. It was over the top and offensive, and the other Democrats did not do much better.

I thought this was a fact-finding commission, not a political commission. Thanks to the Democrats, it has become no better then a political body set up to attack the current administration, to berate those who are testifying and to make partisan political speeches and “points.” It has become a public disgrace.

LISA LARKINS

Lawrenceville, Ga.

Congress needs to say ’when’

I was startled by the vast amount of wasteful government spending outlined in Brian DeBose’s Thursday article on Congress’ pork-barrel projects (“’Pig Book’ slams Congress for 630 wasteful projects,” Nation). I have heard countless arguments that the government’s pork-barrel spending doesn’t matter. According to many leading Democrats, the only solution to our government’s deficit is to increase the average American’s taxes. Many Democrats argued that the $87 billion to fight a war, liberate a nation and rebuild that country was an exorbitant cost that this nation could not afford. Yet there’s nothing wrong with wasting $22.9 billion on projects that are simply silly?

I supported the $87 billion that Congress approved to free 24.7 million Iraqis from the oppressive, murderous regime of maniacal dictator Saddam Hussein, but far too much waste of taxpayer dollars comes from pork-barrel projects from both sides of the aisle. Democrats’ arguments that President Bush is fiscally irresponsible reek of partisan politics. There have been no attacks by Democrats on the pork-barrel spending by members of their own party. If Sen. John Kerry really wants to stand up as the fiscally responsible candidate, one of his favorite campaign slogans, he needs to address the waste spearheaded by his fellow Democrats.

The solution is not to raise our taxes, as Democrats constantly argue. Instead, it’s time that American citizens hold their elected officials responsible. Democrats have charged repeatedly that the Republican Party is wasting taxpayer money; I have yet to hear a different tune from Mr. Kerry or his liberal compatriots.

DEVIN DRUMHELLER

Chairman

Northern Virginia Teenage Republicans

Springfield

The Easter message

In the article “Commitment to Christ is first step to being saved” (Nation, Monday), the Rev. Gary Scarborough’s love for Jesus shines through clearly. I appreciate The Washington Times’ willingness to provide religious news coverage that shares various faiths’ traditions regarding the Easter message.

I would like to respond as a Christian Scientist to the good pastor’s article. I believe that from a human standpoint, Jesus died on the cross and then was resurrected, but from a spiritual standpoint, His spiritual, eternal nature — His sonship with God — never died, even when He was in the tomb. Each day of every year, I share the “huge love for the Lord” the pastor shared.

J. DARROW KIRKPATRICK

Christian Science Committee on Publication

District of Columbia

Washington