- The Washington Times - Saturday, March 17, 2007

A few basic truths

A moral obligation more basic than fossil fuel conservation is truth-telling.

Al Gore’s inconvenient “truth” is only half-truth: produced to prove a point it has, deliberately or not, missed some vital points.

He berates the United States and Australia for not signing the Kyoto Protocol without saying what the terms of that treaty are, what compliance would do to the world economy, that two of the world’s worst polluters, India and China, are exempt from its provisions, or that countries that have signed it have not complied.

It’s important to remember that going off half-cocked has had disastrous results in the past. The ban on DDT, still in effect, has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Africans from malaria, the Alar ban nearly ruined the apple industry, et cetera.

Malthusian predictions of population growth outstripping food production never materialized, acid rain didn’t destroy the earth, the ozone layer is still with us, etc.

Alarmism is a major money-making industry but there is one good that can come from the warming hysteria: it can give impetus to American genius to develop alternative sources of energy so that we can keep our money and our boys here at home.

ELIZABETH WARD

NOTTRODT

Baltimore

Hillary’s motivation

Sen. Hillary Clinton should have already said, like Sen. John Kerry and former Sen. John Edwards did, that she was wrong to vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq and apologize for it (“Question for Hillary,” Op-Ed, Wednesday).

For a long time, becoming president of the United States has been Mrs. Clinton’s goal. Perhaps she wanted her vote to show she could be tough as a future commander in chief of the U.S. military, unafraid to take the country into war if necessary. Nobody may ever know if Mrs. Clinton voted to authorize force in Iraq for personal political reasons, thinking the vote would enhance her presidential chances.

I am a Democrat who likes Mrs. Clinton, but hope she doesn’t get the Democratic nomination. I prefer she keep on serving in the Senate.

PAUL L. WHITELEY SR.

Louisville, Ky.

In consequence

So, the Democrats are upset by Halliburton’s move (“Democrats riled by Halliburton move,” Business, Tuesday) to set up their headquarters in Dubai? Let’s see if I get this right. The Democrats live to hound the corporate officers, preferring to put them in jail. They believe the only unlimited natural resource in this country is tax money, so they try their best to tax companies out of existence. When the company does what is one would expect given the provocation, the Democrats want to paint the company as unpatriotic for not wanting to pay their extortive taxes. At least the Democrats are consistent — no matter how many times they screw up, they refuse to believe in the law of unintended consequences.

You have to hand it to them, you can lead one to water, but you can’t make them think.

J.V. LEDBETTER

Alexandria

Where’s the change?

In his closing sentence, Paul Greenberg uses the term “insincere” (“Slow bleed syndrome,” Commentary, Friday). The term seems to be understated.

The Democrats have used obstructionist and blame politics since President Clinton was impeached. Combine that with a weak Republican network and we have congressional gridlock for almost 7 years. The midterm elections were supposed to be a mandate for change, not an oscillation of power brokering.

The change was supposed to bring the most ethical House in history with a promise not to hold hearings and form commissions with what could only be revenge investigations against the Bush administration. What do we have? Congressmen with frozen assets in the fridge and ABSCAM; an omni directional solution to Iraq with no contingency plans for a worst cased scenario, based on political benchmarks instead of stability benchmarks; and investigations into presidential prerogatives.

Are the American people really getting what they voted for, or just more of the same chaos? Where is the immigration bill that is tied to homeland security that is tied to national defense that is tied to the expanding war on terrorism? Where is the spending bill? Why aren’t we investigating why global warming skeptics are facing McCarthy-like attacks? Why is our foresight horizon limited to the next election cycle?

LARRY STONE

Agate, Colo.

The Gonzales fiasco

The Editorial “Weak knees at Justice” (Thursday), is to the point on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

One of President Bush’s most apparent weaknesses has been his inability to place strong appointees in important positions. Think of the Harriet Miers fiasco. Mr. Gonzales represents the president at the Department of Justice and is acting with his authority.

Instead of a “mind your own business” response to the Democrats, he decides to bleed out slowly with a series of increasingly inane firing excuses. This man is an attorney? Even an ambulance chaser would know not to give aid and comfort to his opponents. After the injustice done to I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Mr. Gonzales seems to be ignoring the obvious “what not to do” examples so harshly taught during the Libby lynching.

Someone please counsel Mr. Gonzales to stop falling on his sword before the enemy is even in sight. The blood in the water is attracting the sharks.

JOHN LEWIS

Baltimore

Stopping a dangerous border situation

The article, “Officers outgunned on U.S. border” (Page 1, March 9), depicts the current out-of-control conditions that exist on the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas.

Having lived through a similar period along the border in San Diego, I can attest to the regular mayhem that existed during the 1980s, as depicted in Joseph Wambaugh’s book, “Lines and Shadows,” which portrayed the rapes and murders which were daily occurrences in the no-man’s zone along the border.

The situation was eliminated with the construction of the border fence under Operation Gatekeeper, which is still being finished. The most obvious result is the new international shopping center and new subdivisions along the border, near Imperial Beach.

We could easily see the same result in Texas, were they to build a similar fence along the 700 miles covered in the legislation passed by Congress last year.

It is imperative that we control our borders, in order to stop the invasion of illegal aliens and potential terrorists, in addition to stopping the dangerous criminal activities.

BYRON SLATER

San Diego


Copyright © 2018 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