- The Washington Times - Saturday, January 13, 2007

In support of the war

I fully agree with and support President Bush’s decision to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq to win the war on terror (“Bush vows surge to fix ‘mistake’,” Page 1, Thursday).

This is a long overdue decision and the former Army chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, made that assessment over two-and-a-half years ago, prior to his retirement in June 2004. The increase in troop strength and the troop and surge to victory is necessary and must be carried out now and followed through. We must defeat the terrorists over there now or we will be confronted on our own homeland and will have to fight them over here. It is no mere coincidence that there has not been a terrorist attack in the United States since since we went after the enemy in Iraq.

The Democratic dominated House and Senate should now approve the funds for the troop increase without undue delay. It’s high time the liberals and Democrats realize what is at stake. We must defeat the terrorist now over in Iraq and Afghanistan. If not, we will eventually and sooner than later be confronted on our homeland and have to engage and fight them over here. Let’s support the president and the war on terror now.



President Bush can’t win. Whatever he does, the mainstream, mostly liberal, media bashes him. They criticized him when he followed the advice of his military leaders regarding troop levels. After the election’s message and the Baker-Hamilton report, as well as the constant drumbeat from many liberals looking for any reason to beat up on him, he agreed to increase troop levels. What happens? The liberals pile on again.

It really is a sad state of affairs. The public has been so brainwashed by nothing but negativity from the media that it’s no wonder there is such a groundswell to just get this over with.

But that doesn’t deal with the realities of the situation. Clearly we can’t pull out for critically important reasons. There would be an ethnic cleaning at such a level that would make the current violence seem like nothing leaving the entire region in turmoil. It would confirm that the United States has no stomach for anything but a fast win in whatever they do and that our word is no good.

In Iraq, the enemy is encouraged daily by our media and the negativity that comes forth from our elected officials. A house divided cannot stand, as the saying goes.

Why in the world would anyone want to be president?



I’m glad that the president of the United States is not guided by polls. If presidents were, we would have lost the Civil War, World War II and the Korean War.

We lost Vietnam because of wishy-washy politicians and the media who fed the American people constant negativity about the military and the conduct of the war. The same thing is happening in Iraq. The Democrats and media, who hate everything that the current president stands for, have constantly been on a negative campaign since the war started.

Now that President Bush has ordered the troop increase, Democrats are against it. There is nothing that Mr. Bush can do that will satisfy the Democrats. The American people need to understand that we can only have one commander-in-chief. Running the country by changing your mind every time a poll comes out cannot succeed and is foolish.



A great legacy

I read the column inches devoted to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and am wondering how many people actually understand the enormity of his vision, what odds he was up against in accomplishing his dream and that he did it all without resorting to force of arms.

From a single month, February, children learn that in Black history, Dr. King had a dream. The only person I have read who understands the vast implication of a dream like Dr. King’s is Deborah Simmons (“Beyond King’s dream,” Op-Ed, Friday). She put him where he belongs: on the same plane as Abraham Lincoln — when she referenced the portion of the “I Have a Dream” speech that mentions the Emancipation Proclamation — and then brought him to the same level as our Founding Fathers with the references he made to our Constitution’s promise of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” with no mention of a man’s color.

Dr. King was a great man, whose sacrifice and dedication to ideals elevated him, and left his legacy to be one of the icons of American liberty, worthy of our reverence as much as were revere George Washington, Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson or any of our Founding Fathers.

Thank God for Martin Luther King Jr.



Cyprus divisions

I arrived in the United States last week to serve as the new Washington representative of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and was disheartened to have to read on my first day at work a letter by Annie Charalambous who, in trying to respond to an earlier Op-Ed, misrepresented the facts in Cyprus and distorted history, failing to give the slightest hint of a change of heart for the constructive on the part of the Greek Cypriot side. (“Another Turkish myth,” Jan. 5).

Firstly, no part of Cyprus was ever occupied by Turkey. Turkey had to intervene in 1974, in accordance with the Treaty of Guarantee of 1960, in order to save the Turkish Cypriots from final elimination in the hands of Greek and Greek Cypriot troops and militia, and to protect the bi-communal independence of Cyprus. Also, the Turkish Cypriots did not “break away” as a result of this rescue operation, but had been forcibly ejected from the legitimate bi-communal Cyprus Republic by the Greek Cypriot partners well before then, in 1963.

Secondly, while exaggerating the Turkish military presence, the Greek Cypriot spokeswoman conveniently ignores the presence of thousands of Greek troops on the island, including 20 generals commanding the Greek Cypriot National Guard. She further skips the fact that mutual troop withdrawal from Cyprus would have started long ago in accordance with the United Nations sponsored settlement plan — the Annan Plan — had the plan not been rejected by the Greek Cypriot side with a staggering 76 percent majority.

Finally, concerning obligations arising from its customs union, Turkey, with its action plan dated Jan. 24, 2006, proposed the simultaneous and reciprocal removal of all restrictions, including those instigated by the Greek Cypriot side with a view to keeping the Turkish Cypriots under an inhuman isolation which covers virtually every aspect of their lives. It should be recalled that the European Council decided on April 26 2004 to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot people. The Greek Cypriot side, together with Greece, has been doing its utmost to prevent the European Union from honoring its commitment.

In light of these facts, it should not be difficult to determine which side “wants to consolidate partition” in Cyprus: The party which has rejected the UN’s comprehensive settlement plan thus preventing the resolution of all the issues which continue to divide the two sides in Cyprus, the party which still hopes to force a whole community into submission through inhuman restrictions.

The Greek Cypriot leadership’s approach to the Cyprus question is so blatantly unconstructive that even a Greek Cypriot commentator could not help but describe it as “repugnant.” Referring to the Greek Cypriot leaders’ mentality Loucas Charalambous wrote: “It is a mentality that clearly and without any trace of shame expresses itself almost officially as the policy of permanent partition. By now it is obvious that they would rather stay in power over half of Cyprus than step down in the case the country was reunified” (Sunday Mail, January 7, 2007).



Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus


Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide