- The Washington Times - Saturday, July 28, 2007


Democratic misfeasance

Thanks for the excellent lead editorial outlining the fobbing and misfeasance of the Democratic leadership in its efforts to undermine the war in Iraq and anything related to President Bush (“Pandering and triangulating,” Editorial, Thursday).

Frank Furedi, included in the “Culture, et cetera” column, writes that former Vice President Al Gore views the public as “politically illiterate” and “the slave of the over-powerful media.”

If Mr. Furedi is right, Mr. Gore and his Democratic supporters should thank their lucky stars that the public is politically illiterate. If they took the time to really study the issues, it may not bode so well for the Democratic Party.

The following items were reported Thursday:

n Democrats defeated a Republican effort to authorize a $3 billon package for new border security and immigration enforcement. Instead they want to focus on a new agriculture program to grant legal status to illegals who work in the fields (“Democrats pitch citizenship path for some illegals,” Page 1). That eventually may be something to get accomplished, but where is Democrats’ recognition of the public groundswell against legalizing illegals and the vast majority of people who demand that we secure the border first?

n Republicans in the House and Senate, despite intense resistance of Democrats, succeeded in winning the day to force an up-or-down vote on guaranteeing a “legal shield” to tipsters who report suspicious behavior (“Legal shield for tipsters advances,” Nation).

n House Speaker Nancy Pelosi continued her political assault on Mr. Bush and the war in Iraq, getting passed in the House a bill stipulating that after the war is over, no permanent base could be maintained in Iraq (“Bill bans permanent Iraq bases,” Nation). Since her pullout campaign has failed, this is just another effort to ensure defeat in the Iraq war — in addition to Democrats’ efforts for the pullout, troop rotation, timetables and the like.

n Even though al Qaeda is actively working to obtain weapons of mass destruction that are nuclear, chemical and biological — as retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper reported to the House Armed Services Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence — Democrats work tirelessly to undo and stymie our efforts to win this war against terrorism (“Al Qaeda seen in search of nukes,” Nation).

A well-informed public is the last thing the Democrats want.



On repealing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’

Right-wing activist Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, is once again using prejudice and personal bias to try and undermine our national security (“Democrat pushes to repeal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy,” Nation, Tuesday). Mrs. Donnelly, who has a long history of trying to roll back opportunities for women and gays, is now advocating changing the name of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” law because, in her view, the current moniker is confusing.

In truth, Mrs. Donnelly may be the only person still confused about this counterproductive and un-American policy. The American people, who in a recent poll expressed 80 percent support for dumping the provision, have had enough of seeing qualified Americans turned away from military service simply because they happen to be homosexual. Our country has lost dozens of Arabic translators, countless doctors and nurses and numerous other highly skilled professionals because of the ban on open service.

Mrs. Donnelly may think the campaign to lift that ban is “propaganda,” but the overwhelming majority of voters believe it’s just common sense. Our country has come a long way in recognizing the contributions of homosexual Americans. It is unfortunate that Mrs. Donnelly chooses to be left behind, pushing her homophobic agenda, even at the cost of our national defense.


Director of communications

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network


Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, California Democrat, and others, including Sen. Hillary Clinton, are considering repeal of the 1993 law that bars homosexuals from serving in the military. If the law is changed, sexual orientation will no longer be a factor to be considered in the recruitment and retention of military personnel.

Although I think the above is a bad idea, if we are going to change the current law, we need to go all the way. The new law should also specify that the military should no longer consider not only sexual orientation but also gender. Orientation and gender would thus no longer be factors in recruitment, duty assignments, job specialties, shower and toilet facilities and sleeping quarters. Thus all facilities and programs will be orientation- and gender-neutral in other words, co-ed.

Although the above sounds insane, it is the only logical and fair thing to do for both homosexual and heterosexual personnel. It is supported by the reasoning used to repeal the current 1993 law that sexual orientation in a military environment is irrelevant and the military is no different than civilian society.


JAGC, Navy (Retired)


The party of inquisition

While watching Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, advising senators Thursday that he had issued a subpoena to Karl Rove to appear before his Senate Intelligence Committee, one must ask: What’s the Vermont word for chutzpah? (“Democrats seek Gonzales probe, subpoena Rove,” Nation, Friday).

It should be remembered that Mr. Leahy had to resign his Intelligence Committee post for leaking classified information on several occasions during the mid-1980s all with serious consequences. Now, because the president’s aide Karl Rove refuses to “leak” protected confidential White House conversations, Mr. Leahy, remarkably, feels it necessary to subpoena him. Considering Mr. Leahy’s record, I am reminded of the judicial principal that when entering a court of equity, it must be with clean hands.

As for Sen. Charles E. Schumer’s request that the Justice Department appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales lied to Congress, Sen. Arlen Spector pulled no punches when he accused Mr. Schumer of playing politics to campaign for additional Democratic Senators in November. Rep. John Conyers showed his chutzpah by insisting that Mr. Rove resign.

Combined with Messrs. Schumer and Leahy’s continuing investigations, Mr. Conyers will assure that the current Democratic Party will go down in history as the party of inquisition.


Indian Wells

Health care and the bottom line

“Sicko,” Michael Moore’s new movie, should make us all think about the future of our health-care system (“Care bear,” Show, June 29).

Fortunately, he put a human face on what has become a faceless and impersonalized system, one where patients are “consumers” and physicians are “health care providers.” This is what happens when health care is put into the hands of large health insurers whose primary function is to generate profits for shareholders while patients’ needs, along with doctors’, become a secondary concern.

Most members of the public don’t know much about health care except that it’s expensive and becoming more so every year as they watch their benefits go down and their co-pays go up.

Whether our system is left in the hands of private insurers working with government oversight and help, or becomes a mostly tax-supported system, the important thing is that the profit motive be eliminated.

It is absurd that many young people who are just starting out in life and don’t have jobs and can’t afford insurance have to go uncovered, depending on their parents for help. Many working men and women with families also struggle over insurance premiums and doctors’ bills, too.

With less rhetoric from our leaders and more discussion of principles, we may yet get a health system that has a human face.


Bethel, Conn.

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