If you're arguing Iraq War, best to stick to facts, truth
Mr. Papanikolas is correct in reminding us that anyone in our country can criticize whatever they like regardless of their service in the military ("Military service not needed to assess military matters," letter, Jan. 10). We are blessed to live in a nation that allows free speech, whether everyone likes it or not.
What he fails to comprehend, however, is that in our democracy, in order to criticize successfully, it generally helps to have the facts, or more specifically, the truth, on your side.
The "truth," as far as the war in Iraq goes, is still to be determined. History will ultimo thatately show who the "traitors" and "cowards" really are in this matter.
In the meantime, I would like to urge those who prefer to resort to name-calling and in general denigrating their opponents to focus more specifically on the facts at hand if they want to persuade successfully for their cause.
Facts, such as: Approaching five years of military occupation in Iraq; almost 4,000 dead American service men and women; approximately 28,000 wounded or disabled American service men and women; approximately 80,000 Iraqi civilians killed; close to $1 trillion in American treasure for a war that seems without end; irreparable (?) harm to our relations not only with our long-standing allies but the entire world as well.
In closing, I would very much appreciate someone defining what "winning" will be in Iraq. Do we keep American troops and bases there for five, 10, 20 years, forever? And at what cost to our nation -- another 50,000 deaths, as in the Viet Nam conflict? Or a possible third World War?
If the response is, "We should pay any price," my initial thought on that is, "Easy for you to say."
Erskine Traynham Jr.
Laurel
First cowards, now treason: What's next for war critics?
My Jan. 3 letter to the editor objecting to the Democratic leadership being called cowards by people who have not served in the military was written out of frustration and I truly apologize.
I am frustrated by their being called cowards because of their efforts to get us out of an unjust war being fought over oil instead of weapons of mass destruction, as we were led to believe. Does what is left of the Constitution allow me to say this?
My frustration should be directed at Cheney and his neo-con accomplices.
Now the Democratic leaders are being associated with treason ( "Military service not needed to assess military matters," letter, Jan. 10). I had better not write any more letters because there might be a word for believing in evolution and that also would be directed at them.
The Democrats are being criticized for investigating most everything that has gone on in the past seven years, but I am glad someone is interested in doing this.
By the way, all who have served their country, no matter how long or why, should be commended.
Tom Boyle
Laurel
Friday, January 18, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Letter to the Editor, Laurel Leader, January 10, 2008
Military service not needed to assess military matters
Mr. Boyle seems to have a problem with criticizing the Democrats in Congress ("Some critics have no right to call Democrats 'cowards', letter, Jan. 3). Apparently, the only people who have the "right" to criticize these people are those who have worn the uniform. Dick Cheney's out because he never served. Is President Bush out because he didn't serve in the "real" military?
It might surprise Mr. Boyle to learn that there are only 29 senators and 130 Congressman (roughly 25 percent of Congress) with military experience, fewer still with actual combat experience. Should the rest just sit down and keep quiet because they don't know what they are talking about?
Both parties are guilty of hyperbole when it comes to military matters and the Iraq war. That said, lacking a military background does not disqualify one from being able to critique the leadership of Congress in military affairs. Many Congressmen have advocated withdrawal from Iraq, not because we cannot win, but because the war is a political wedge issue that they can use to their advantage.
Withdrawal in the face of the enemy is cowardice by any definition, but stabbing your countrymen in the back for personal gain is something else. They had a name for it during the Revolutionary War. It was called "turning Arnold." General Benedict Arnold was also a hero of the Continental Army who sold his country down the river. His country never forgave him, just as I hope we never forgive our current crop of Arnolds.
Treason, thy names are Murtha, Pelosi and Reid.
(By the way, I have served my country, if ever so briefly, in the United States Army Reserves and am proud of this service to this day.)
Jason W. Papanikolas
Laurel
Mr. Boyle seems to have a problem with criticizing the Democrats in Congress ("Some critics have no right to call Democrats 'cowards', letter, Jan. 3). Apparently, the only people who have the "right" to criticize these people are those who have worn the uniform. Dick Cheney's out because he never served. Is President Bush out because he didn't serve in the "real" military?
It might surprise Mr. Boyle to learn that there are only 29 senators and 130 Congressman (roughly 25 percent of Congress) with military experience, fewer still with actual combat experience. Should the rest just sit down and keep quiet because they don't know what they are talking about?
Both parties are guilty of hyperbole when it comes to military matters and the Iraq war. That said, lacking a military background does not disqualify one from being able to critique the leadership of Congress in military affairs. Many Congressmen have advocated withdrawal from Iraq, not because we cannot win, but because the war is a political wedge issue that they can use to their advantage.
Withdrawal in the face of the enemy is cowardice by any definition, but stabbing your countrymen in the back for personal gain is something else. They had a name for it during the Revolutionary War. It was called "turning Arnold." General Benedict Arnold was also a hero of the Continental Army who sold his country down the river. His country never forgave him, just as I hope we never forgive our current crop of Arnolds.
Treason, thy names are Murtha, Pelosi and Reid.
(By the way, I have served my country, if ever so briefly, in the United States Army Reserves and am proud of this service to this day.)
Jason W. Papanikolas
Laurel
Monday, January 7, 2008
Letter to the Editor, Laurel Leader, December 27, 2007
Majority Leader Hoyer, like rest of House, had bad year
The U.S. Congress gave the American people an early holiday gift this season. They adjourned.
What a relief! One of the worst Congressional sessions by any objective measure has come and gone and I'm sure that the American people are thankful that the bloodletting has ceased.
The Democrats who took control of Congress, including our own Steny Hoyer, set about to accomplish three things: 1) end the war in Iraq, 2) "reform" Congress, and 3) to do so through bipartisanship. What kind of bipartisanship, you ask? The type where they run roughshod over everyone who disagrees with them and pretend that Americans are too stupid to know the difference between leadership and browbeating.
How else do you explain presenting the exact same proposal on ending the Iraq war to Congress 60 times and expecting a different result than your first failure?
Congressman Hoyer shares much of blame for the failure of this Congress. As majority leader, he is one of the four most powerful people in Congress. So why is it that a congressman who touts his moderate views, his bipartisanship and his respect for the American soldier helped craft legislation that is anathema to his supposed beliefs?
Christmas is a time for reflection and change. This Christmas we need to reflect on ourselves and where we are as a people. Marylanders, in particular, need to decide which Steny Hoyer we want. Do we want the false caricature of a congressman we've been presented with time and again or the man who sits in Congress telling us what to think and do because it's for our own good?
I am beginning to think that it is time to thank Congressman Hoyer for his many years of service and ask him to step aside so that Maryland can be represented by competent leadership.
Jason W. Papanikolas
Laurel
The U.S. Congress gave the American people an early holiday gift this season. They adjourned.
What a relief! One of the worst Congressional sessions by any objective measure has come and gone and I'm sure that the American people are thankful that the bloodletting has ceased.
The Democrats who took control of Congress, including our own Steny Hoyer, set about to accomplish three things: 1) end the war in Iraq, 2) "reform" Congress, and 3) to do so through bipartisanship. What kind of bipartisanship, you ask? The type where they run roughshod over everyone who disagrees with them and pretend that Americans are too stupid to know the difference between leadership and browbeating.
How else do you explain presenting the exact same proposal on ending the Iraq war to Congress 60 times and expecting a different result than your first failure?
Congressman Hoyer shares much of blame for the failure of this Congress. As majority leader, he is one of the four most powerful people in Congress. So why is it that a congressman who touts his moderate views, his bipartisanship and his respect for the American soldier helped craft legislation that is anathema to his supposed beliefs?
Christmas is a time for reflection and change. This Christmas we need to reflect on ourselves and where we are as a people. Marylanders, in particular, need to decide which Steny Hoyer we want. Do we want the false caricature of a congressman we've been presented with time and again or the man who sits in Congress telling us what to think and do because it's for our own good?
I am beginning to think that it is time to thank Congressman Hoyer for his many years of service and ask him to step aside so that Maryland can be represented by competent leadership.
Jason W. Papanikolas
Laurel
Letter to the Editor, Laurel Leader, October 18, 2007
No politician should use children as political tool
Mr. Crossley implies, both from the substance and the tone of his response to my letter, that I am a far right partisan hack who should be shunned by society for suggesting that using children in the place of reasoned, logical argumentation is morally indefensible in the least and has an aura of "terrorism" ("It's Bush, not Hoyer, whose S-CHIP position is shameful," letter, Oct. 11).
Yes, Mr. Crossley, I am a bad, bad human being. I am obviously the left hand of Satan sent to destroy those 4 million innocent children without health insurance. Please! You don't even know me!
Apparently, you missed the ultimate point of my letter. Allow me to clear that up for you.
I condemn any politician that uses children and the defenseless as political weapons to score points on the opposition. I condemn Rep. Hoyer's use of Graeme Frost and, yes, Mr. Crossley, I condemn President Bush's use of the "Snowflake Children."
I condemn them because it is despicable to coerce a 12-year-old child who has suffered a traumatic brain injury into speaking for you.
We all want what is best for society, for our country and, ultimately, for the world. These tactics of terror do not further the debate in that regard and they, ultimately, distract from what truly matters: the future of our children and our children's children.
Jason W. Papanikolas
Laurel
Mr. Crossley implies, both from the substance and the tone of his response to my letter, that I am a far right partisan hack who should be shunned by society for suggesting that using children in the place of reasoned, logical argumentation is morally indefensible in the least and has an aura of "terrorism" ("It's Bush, not Hoyer, whose S-CHIP position is shameful," letter, Oct. 11).
Yes, Mr. Crossley, I am a bad, bad human being. I am obviously the left hand of Satan sent to destroy those 4 million innocent children without health insurance. Please! You don't even know me!
Apparently, you missed the ultimate point of my letter. Allow me to clear that up for you.
I condemn any politician that uses children and the defenseless as political weapons to score points on the opposition. I condemn Rep. Hoyer's use of Graeme Frost and, yes, Mr. Crossley, I condemn President Bush's use of the "Snowflake Children."
I condemn them because it is despicable to coerce a 12-year-old child who has suffered a traumatic brain injury into speaking for you.
We all want what is best for society, for our country and, ultimately, for the world. These tactics of terror do not further the debate in that regard and they, ultimately, distract from what truly matters: the future of our children and our children's children.
Jason W. Papanikolas
Laurel
Response to October 4 Letter to the Editor, Laurel Leader
It's Bush, not Hoyer, whose S-CHIP position is shameful
The letter from Jason W. Papanikolas ("Shame on Rep. Hoyer for his stance on S- CHIP legislation," Oct. 4) is an example of just how shameless some people on the far right are and the depths to which they will go.
Our congressman, Steny Hoyer, who has fought for the rights of the poor and middle-class and defended the powerless for many years in the U. S. Congress, is accused by Mr. Papanikolas of "using children as a human shield" and is called "a real terrorist" for supporting the S-CHIP legislation that will add health care coverage to four million children who currently have no coverage whatsoever.
Not only that, the S-CHIP legislation that the president vetoed, had overwhelming support in the United States Senate (67 -29) and the House (265-159). Congress worked for over a year to put together legislation that everyone could accept. Now with President Bush's veto, unless Congress can override it, millions of the children of the working poor and lower middle class will have no health care coverage.
It is simply unacceptable to accuse Steny Hoyer of using a child as a "human shield." That kind of outrageous language goes far beyond anything that even those who oppose this bill should accept. I suppose Mr. Papanikolas had no problem when President Bush trotted out dozens of "Snowflake Children" when he vetoed the stem-cell research bill that would have funded much- needed research that could save millions. Is Bush a "terrorist" for using children in that press conference to announce his veto of the stem-cell research bill, Mr. Papanikolas?
The S-CHIP legislation has no "serious, but correctable flaws" as Mr. Papanikolas argues, but the president's reasoning for vetoing the bill does. The president keeps mentioning in his stump speeches that the bill would cover families that make up to $83,000, but the bill actually makes it harder for states to extend coverage to children in high-income families. In reality, the vast majority of children covered come from families of the working poor and lower middle class who have no health insurance coverage at all.
Mr. Bush's war in Iraq has already cost the United States over $450 billion, according to recent estimates. The additional funding for S-CHIP will cost $35 billion over five years, and is funded by an increase in the federal cigarette tax.
Mr. Bush's veto does not make him a terrorist, but it does show he is an out of touch, ill-informed president who has little compassion for the least powerful in our society.
Eric Crossley
Laurel
The letter from Jason W. Papanikolas ("Shame on Rep. Hoyer for his stance on S- CHIP legislation," Oct. 4) is an example of just how shameless some people on the far right are and the depths to which they will go.
Our congressman, Steny Hoyer, who has fought for the rights of the poor and middle-class and defended the powerless for many years in the U. S. Congress, is accused by Mr. Papanikolas of "using children as a human shield" and is called "a real terrorist" for supporting the S-CHIP legislation that will add health care coverage to four million children who currently have no coverage whatsoever.
Not only that, the S-CHIP legislation that the president vetoed, had overwhelming support in the United States Senate (67 -29) and the House (265-159). Congress worked for over a year to put together legislation that everyone could accept. Now with President Bush's veto, unless Congress can override it, millions of the children of the working poor and lower middle class will have no health care coverage.
It is simply unacceptable to accuse Steny Hoyer of using a child as a "human shield." That kind of outrageous language goes far beyond anything that even those who oppose this bill should accept. I suppose Mr. Papanikolas had no problem when President Bush trotted out dozens of "Snowflake Children" when he vetoed the stem-cell research bill that would have funded much- needed research that could save millions. Is Bush a "terrorist" for using children in that press conference to announce his veto of the stem-cell research bill, Mr. Papanikolas?
The S-CHIP legislation has no "serious, but correctable flaws" as Mr. Papanikolas argues, but the president's reasoning for vetoing the bill does. The president keeps mentioning in his stump speeches that the bill would cover families that make up to $83,000, but the bill actually makes it harder for states to extend coverage to children in high-income families. In reality, the vast majority of children covered come from families of the working poor and lower middle class who have no health insurance coverage at all.
Mr. Bush's war in Iraq has already cost the United States over $450 billion, according to recent estimates. The additional funding for S-CHIP will cost $35 billion over five years, and is funded by an increase in the federal cigarette tax.
Mr. Bush's veto does not make him a terrorist, but it does show he is an out of touch, ill-informed president who has little compassion for the least powerful in our society.
Eric Crossley
Laurel
Letter to the Editor, Laurel Leader, October 4, 2007
Shame on Rep. Hoyer for his stance on S-CHIP legislation
I don't know how many people noticed our congressman, Steny Hoyer, standing beside a 9-year old girl while denouncing the president for threatening to veto the expansion of the S-CHIP program.
Why is it that a congressman feels the need to use children as a human shield? Could it be that this proposal is such bad public policy that intimidation and terrorist tactics are the only way to get it approved?
I'm all for providing assistance to the needy and helpless in our community, but any government proposal to do so should be debated on its relative merits. The bill expanding the S-CHIP program has serious, but correctable, flaws.
Instead of working to correct them, however, Congressman Hoyer has chosen to support a bill that will hurt our community, our country and ultimately our children. He takes this "brave" stance while using children as political weapons to force the president to sign into law a seriously flawed and ultimately self-defeating proposal.
Forget Iraq; the real terrorists already appear to be in the U.S. Congress. Shame on you, congressman, and on those who stood with you!
Jason W. Papanikolas
Laurel
I don't know how many people noticed our congressman, Steny Hoyer, standing beside a 9-year old girl while denouncing the president for threatening to veto the expansion of the S-CHIP program.
Why is it that a congressman feels the need to use children as a human shield? Could it be that this proposal is such bad public policy that intimidation and terrorist tactics are the only way to get it approved?
I'm all for providing assistance to the needy and helpless in our community, but any government proposal to do so should be debated on its relative merits. The bill expanding the S-CHIP program has serious, but correctable, flaws.
Instead of working to correct them, however, Congressman Hoyer has chosen to support a bill that will hurt our community, our country and ultimately our children. He takes this "brave" stance while using children as political weapons to force the president to sign into law a seriously flawed and ultimately self-defeating proposal.
Forget Iraq; the real terrorists already appear to be in the U.S. Congress. Shame on you, congressman, and on those who stood with you!
Jason W. Papanikolas
Laurel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
