October 15, 2009

The Obama haters have no substantive arguments against Obama, and they can't use the "N-Bomb" publicly so they go down the list of other names to call him. He is obviously not gay, so all they have left for epithets are "commie, socialist, Kenyan." President Obama's policies are pro-big business to the core. A new health plan is going to hand millions of new customers to the insurance companies. Look at all the big business capitalists he has for advisors! Do you see any commies in his cabinet? Do critics really think that the nation can get out of economic distress without spending taxpayer dollars? Do they really think that private businesses are capable of getting us out of the hole they shoved us into? Protesters are carrying signs claiming a love of capitalism. Did they not notice how capitalism got us into the economic mess? Which goes back to my thesis, they have no real arguments and that is why their criticisms sound so whacky.

October 7, 2009 (Published Oct. 11, 2009)

How ironic that today (Wednesday October 7th) a statue of Helen Keller is placed in the Capitol representing the best of Alabama and probably not one of those present realized that Helen Keller became a member of the Socialist Party in 1909 and by 1912, she had become a national voice for socialism and working class solidarity. Helen Keller would have been an advocate for the government option so many of her adulators are against.

September 27, 2009

Large fires in the Los Angeles area give us a picture of what we can expect in the future. Million dollar homes are being protected by private fire companies provided by the home insurance industry. Homes of lesser value must rely on local fire departments. This relates to a trend in all of our social interactions. Those that can afford protection and care can buy it and the rest must rely upon public services. The problem arises when the public sector becomes strapped for cash and services are cut. Good schools, fire protection, armed response, and health care are available for anyone who can afford it. The social compact that created us as a nation is breaking down. The attitude of those who are against a public option in health care is the same attitude that supported the commercialization of what are now our national parks. The lack of a sense of community goes against the tenets of the U.S. Constitution by emphasizing the rights of an individual over the needs of society as a whole. Of course health care for all is going to cost more money, but it is a price we all have to pay to remain one people instead of a bunch of individuals holed up in our private castles.

Public highways, public schools, public libraries, public fire and police protection are all one and the same with public health care because they are all necessities, not choices. To be consistent, the opponents of a public option in health insurance need to stop driving on public highways.

September 16, 2009

Why are people afraid of a public option for health insurance? They are the same people who accept and use the public option for police protection, public schools, roads and highways, postal service, armed forces, research, space exploration, ocean exploration and so on. Is providing the public option to have interstate highways more important than a public option for health insurance? Years ago there was the Barlow toll road. Now we have a public highway. Those who are against the public option in health insurance scream "socialism" to drown out the arguments but doesn't that ignore the many social agreements we all readily use? Do you see people saying we should have private armies to fight al-Qaeda because a government army would be socialism? If you want only for-profit solutions to providing health care then to be fair you should demand the same for all the other services you take for granted.

A society is esteemed for how it cares for the sick, the poor, and those who are not part of the for-profit system. There are good things that must be done that do not make a profit. If we were limited only to profit making enterprises then we would be a poorer society in the end. Not everyone can sell something or invent something for money. Thanks to the break-down in the for-profit system this past year there are many more people who know what it is like being on the outside. Through no fault of their own they have no health insurance. How does free-enterprise treat its castoffs?

September 3, 2009

What is so scary about government provided health insurance? Millions on Medicare find it just the ticket. The government provides highways and no one rails against "socialized transportation." Do supporters of private schools fear public schools? It just does not make any sense to not have a public option for a public need. Private options will always exist along side the government service. For instance, anyone can hire a private guard if they feel the police are not up to the task. A public health insurance option won't take away anyone's right to buy their own health care. Having a postal service does not prevent anyone from sending a letter by FedEx or UPS. But just as those two companies have their prices and standards, the private health insurance companies only insure those who meet their standards. Not everyone can get insurance from the for-profit companies. The profit motive has no public interest, only a bottom line. And sometimes that is not enough to protect our national interest.

August 22, 2009

Folks who don't like the idea of the government helping with health care point to the U.S Postal Service and its 7 billion dollar debt as an example to avoid. I don't get it. Just have the postage rate increase to what it costs to send a letter by FedEx or UPS then see what the complaint would be. Postal workers that I know are conscientious hard workers and I get tired of know-nothings using them as the example of bad government. On the contrary, postal workers and the postal service deserve credit for a job well done. And the postal rates should be higher so that costs are covered, then ignorant critics would have to look elsewhere for an example of bad governance.

August 16, 2009

How much are you paying your health insurance provider's CEO to run your insurance company? To find out, look on the Internet here http://www.companypay.com/.

U.S. health insurance companies have increased premium rates by 87 percent since 2002. In that same time the profits for the top ten health insurance companies have increased 428 percent. Why are some people protesting against health insurance reform? Do they enjoy paying insurance company CEOs millions of dollars a year to tell them what doctors they can see and what "previous condition" will not be covered?

August 7, 2009

All those who support the present for-profit health insurance and are deathly afraid of a single-payer health insurance system, just why is it you enjoy making health insurance CEOs rich, so rich that some receive millions of dollars every year in compensation? That is money coming right out of your pocket and into their vacation homes and yachts. The big companies are making a profit off of the present system and you are paying for it. Are you getting your money's worth? The private insurance companies are spending $1.4 million a day of your money to keep the system the way it is. Why not? They are rich and you think you have coverage. Until you get denied. Or lose your job. Or...?

July 19, 2009

In Iraq and Afghanistan we are killing and being killed. For what? Killing al-Qaeda and Taliban will not solve the problem posed by terrorism and by resorting to killing we only confirm their philosophy and denigrate ours. How are we any better than the enemy if we use their methods to attain our goals? We prove that they are right every day that we are there using their methods to solve our problems. It is time withdraw our forces, stop the killing. If we have to be there at all it should be to build schools and hospitals and help the people, not kill them and further destroy their country. What Walter Cronkite said about getting out of Vietnam applies to our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:
"But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could."

June 22, 2009

The government's banking industry stabilization plan is going to cost trillions of dollars. It is enough money to buy outright all the outstanding home mortgages and pay for a first class health care system. The money, if spent that way, would return to the banking industry after doing some good. So why are we, the taxpayers, just giving it to the banks? After all, if it is a government plan, then the taxpayers get stuck with the bill.

June 10, 2009

According to a CNN, half of those polled thought that torture was OK when questioning terrorists. A Harris poll indicate that at least 60% of Americans believe in God and that Hell is a place where non-believers will be tortured for all eternity. Well, if God approves of torture, who are you to object?

April 9, 2009

The road to peace goes through Palestine, not Afghanistan. We can take the war to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, all over the world, but until we solve the Palestine problem we will never find peace. The war in Afghanistan is counterproductive, making more enemies instead of solving the real problem. The Oregon National Guard is being sent there to train forces to fight terrorists that were made by American foreign policy. Sure, people choose to be terrorists, but they are not born terrorists. Terrorists are made by injustice and oppression. The American C.I.A. helped grow the Taliban back when they were fighting the Soviets. American support of Israel's oppression and land appropriation is at the heart of the problem. Israelis who say that their God gave them the land need to find a better way to demonstrate the truth of that belief. A crushing military superiority is not proof that God is on your side, but instead it proves only that America is on your side.

March 7, 2009

The effect of overwhelming and crushing force can often give its users a false sense of victory, when the problem really is not solved and victory only lasts as long as the force remains. Solving the drug problem by killing drug dealers is an endless task. Every analysis of the so-called "war on drugs" rates it as a failure despite our spending billions on killing drug dealers and throwing drug users in prison. Not until America answers the question of why its citizens are buying drugs will we be be going in the right direction. Making drugs illegal only makes them expensive, not unobtainable. Did we not learn anything from the Era of Prohibition? It was a failed attempt to outlaw booze.

We are now collecting taxes on alcoholic beverages and the distribution is controlled, with reasonable prices, in reach of anyone who wants to drink. Is there anyone who wants to make alcohol illegal and return the distribution to the gangs? Why do we continue a wrong-headed attitude toward drugs and marijuana? It is just plain stupid, costly and we are missing a great tax revenue source. That is not something that cash-strapped local governments can long ignore as they talk of building new bridges over the Willamette and the Columbia.

February 27, 2009

The champions of free enterprise have long sought the death of Social Security and recent attempts to kill it have linked it to Medicare and Medicaid as examples of government programs that are bust. But take Social Security on its own and reliable analysis predicts that its current funding is good for another 30 years, and even then only a small increase in the upper limit will continue its complete funding. What is really bust are all the private pensions that we were supposed to dump Social Security for. Social Security is so successful that its funds are being borrowed to support other government spending, with loans that need to be repaid. It isn't Social Security that is the problem, it is the borrowing of the funds and the loans that are not being repaid. There is hardly a private pension plan that can match the success of Social Security. Imagine where we would be today if we had taken the advice of private enterprise and put Social Security on the stock market! Talk of fiscal responsibility is just a smoke screen to hide attempts to kill one of the really successful government programs, one that has been paying for itself and providing loans for other spending programs for almost 70 years.

February 12, 2009

It was grand challenge that President Obama threw to the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan, to build instead of destroy. Now, as he sends more combat troops to Afghanistan, Obama should take his own advice.

February 9, 2009

"The silent war killing our soldiers" (The Oregonian editorial, Monday, Feb. 9, 2009) revisits an issue that was brought to the public's attention last year during the Winter Soldier hearings. The Iraq war veterans gave the reason for the high rate of soldier suicides, but they were ignored by the media. Returning vets told the same story over and over: they became disconnected when they saw and committed war crimes in America's name. Returning vets reported civilian deaths that were covered up. They saw that the war had nothing to do with the protection of American freedoms. The war benefits certain American interests, but not American freedom.

There is nothing heroic about knocking down the door of a house where the people inside are women and children. There is no satisfaction in shooting another man who is only protecting his home. The problem is that Americans are being lied to by the government about the real reasons for the war and our soldiers are being used as hired killers. A couple of famous lies were caught (Private Jessica Lynch's "rescue" and Corporal Pat Tillman's death), but hundreds of other coverups have rested on the minds of returning soldiers, who are torn between what they have seen and done, and what is being told to the American public. This leads to a cognitive dissonance that many cannot handle. It is disingenuous of the military to say "We do not know what is going on." They have been given examples over and over of what the problem is but they cannot face the fact that what they are doing is wrong, wrong disguised by and covered with the American flag.

How many of your readers could handle such a conflict? If all the returning soldiers felt honestly heroic and if the war was really just, there would be fewer suicides.

February 7, 2009

As the taxpayers bailout the banks and industry of America there are still those champions of capitalism who say the system is working. They should talk to some of the hundreds of thousands who no longer have jobs, pensions, health care. It has always been clear to those outside the system that it does not work. Now as former insiders get a taste of what it is like to be without a job, home, dignity maybe we will have more support for government that works for economic as well as social justice. A poor American is still an American and those who can survive the coming economic hard times can't abandon those who may not weather the increasing bad times. A nation works together and a big part of the cause of the economic depression that we now face has been decreased government oversight and regulation of activities that should be for the common good but which were instead hijacked by people who were individuals first and Americans last.

January 13, 2009

The claim that the troop surge worked is false. Here is the truth, we are paying 70,000 Sunni insurgents $300 a month to not fight us and instead go after al Qaeda. This costs about $21 million a month. So it is the surge in money, not the surge in troops that is helping right now. We did this once before. In the 1980s we paid Osama Bin Ladin and his cohorts to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. We trained them and gave them money and weapons to use on the Russians. Now they are using that training to fight us. And even if someone wanted to grant Bush a troop surge credit, that is against his stupid decision to start the war in the first place.

So here he is crowing about winning a war that he started for no good reason based upon what he is calling mistaken intelligence but which we all know was based upon cherry picked information. He ignored those who told him the war was a bad idea. Just like he ignored the warnings of our own CIA and FBI agents, before 9/11, who tried to tell him about the impending attacks by al Qaeda using aircraft. I hope the American people are smart enough to see through the smoke screen that Bush is laying down as he departs.

November 11, 2008

We have found out over the last eight years that we cannot defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban on their terms, which is by fighting and killing. The enemy simply moves to another area. In addition, we become like them, and thousands of civilians die. Instead, we should take the battle to them on our terms by doing massive good works in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should be spending billions on food and water supplies, schools and hospitals, instead of for bombs and bullets. It is only by doing what we do better than anyone else that we will prove we have the best system and the best beliefs. Our best values can't be promoted with guns but they can be taught by example. If we stay on our present course, how many people will we have to kill to show that our way is best?

November 11, 2008

Why not stop both wars now? Instead of "cutting and running" what we do is "stay and build" schools and hospitals. Show the world our good side instead our killing side. Would this work? I think history shows that it would.

For instance, there was a terrible famine in the Soviet Union in the 1920s. Herbert Hoover headed up a relief effort that saved millions of lives in the Soviet Union. One of those people saved grew up to beome a high official in the Soviet military. He was instrumental in getting the Berlin Blockade lifted during the 1940s, in part because he recalled the life saving help he had received because of the American aid when he was starving. The good Hoover did returned in an unexpected way.

The next example happened in Saudi Arabia. King Saud was ill and he needed medical attention. Two American missionary doctors were in Arabia and came to his aid. Not only did they put King Saud back to good health but over a period of years more than 300,000 Arabian citizens were treated. Some years later, when oil was discovered in Arabia, King Saud chose American companies to survey and later drill for the oil, rather than the British or French companies. He knew and trusted Americans from his experience with the American doctors. Our supply of oil deals with the Saudis dates back to the good that was done, even before oil was discovered.

What is the lesson of history? More benefit comes with Americans doing good things for the world than comes from all of our wars to kill our enemies. If we could have spent the last eight years building schools and hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan we would be far ahead of where we are now. These wars have put us behind in the quest for hearts and minds. The wars have proven the case against us propagated by al Qaeda, that we are war mongers, that we are evil. By indiscriminate bombing and killing civilians we have made enemies faster than we could kill them. Obama is wrong to continue a failed policy in the Middle East. War and killing only lead to more war and killing.

Why not stop both wars now? Instead of "cutting and running" what we do is "stay and build" schools and hospitals. Show the world our good side instead our killing side. For those readers who are Christians, recall that your leader told his followers to return evil with good. Fighting evil with evil only puts us on the same level as those we fight.

November 7, 2008 (published)

Before Obama can even get in office every other letter to the editor is complaining that he will lead us down the road to socialism by helping folks who don't have medical insurance and because we may spend some money to fix our neglected infrastructure. In the mean time, on the business pages we see a constant stream of articles about large capitalist companies begging for government handouts. It seems the complaints are misdirected.

Sept. 8, 2009

Letter to the editor

Like President Bush, Sarah Palin ties God's will to the programs she wants. She has claimed that the war in Iraq is a "task that is from God." She also claimed it was God's will to get "the gas line built, so pray for that." We know from real evidence that the war in Iraq was planned by men and women in the Bush administration using crooked evidence. How much longer are we going to allow our nation to be governed by superstitious men and women who call down their God to support their every scheme?

This use of what they call "God" is a cynical exploitation of what they know to be true about America: most Americans believe in God. All that a politician has to do is convince those believers that God is on their side and then anything they want to do becomes God's will, despite evidence that the scheme is based upon faulty science or crooked evidence.

It it time for this nonsense to end. National policy cannot be based upon religious beliefs which are not subject to any sort of objective proof. Go ahead and believe in God, but don't send soldiers off to kill and be killed based upon that belief. That is a crime that we can only hope will not go unpunished by the natural course of events.

Sept. 3, 2008

Letter to the editor

The party that brought America its largest debt in history is now trying to tie that can to the Democrats' tail and is also claiming Obama will raise everyone's taxes, when in fact his plan is to reduce taxes on 95% of Americans. Not one newsperson called out these contradictions. Republicans are calling for more nuclear power plants, and not one reporter is asking them where the nuclear waste will be sent. Is your state prepared to take nuclear waste for storage?

And the Republicans want to start drilling onshore and offshore and they want to run more pipelines. Not one reporter has asked them how much oil is available from this drilling and how long it will last and when it can start flowing. Why the soft treatment? Is it because the reporters, like many Americans, don't know that Republicans have cost Americans more in government spending than Democrats? Is it that reporters also think that nuclear waste is not a problem? Don't newspaper and TV reporters know that there are only a few years worth of oil available in the locations that Republicans want to drill? Are they as ignorant as the people they should be educating?

August 25, 2008

Letter to the editor,

The decline in U.S. deaths in Iraq has been credited to the so called "surge." However, according to the New York Times (August 21, 2008), "former insurgents who joined the American payroll...have been a major pillar in the decline in violence around the nation." The U.S. is paying Sunnis not to fight, the real surge has been a surge of dollars. When McCain and others claim the surge has worked, they neglect to say anything about the amount of money we are paying over 90,000 former insurgents. Many newspapers missed this important bit of information, making McCain's claims appear valid. McCain castigates Obama for voting against the surge while saying nothing about the real reason for the decline in violence. Perhaps we should be paying more enemies to stop fighting. Think of the good will we could have been spreading if the billions of dollars spent killing had been spent healing.

Letter to the editor,

Claims by McCain that the "surge" has worked are short on evidence. However, "United States commanders say that the practice, however unconventional, of paying the guerrillas has saved the lives of hundreds of American soldiers." More than 91,000 former Sunni insurgents have been bought off by the U.S. military, that is why it appears that the surge is working. "In fact, money, far more than jihadist ideology, is a crucial motivation for a majority of Sunni insurgents, according to American officers in some Sunni provinces and other military officials in Iraq who have reviewed detainee surveys and other intelligence on the insurgency." This information was first published in the New York Times March 16, 2008. So why are reporters letting McCain get away with claims that the surge is working? He offers no proof for that claim, but American commanders are telling a different reason for the the downturn in insurgent violence.

June 6, 2008 Letter to the editor,

The U.S. government is putting pressure on the Iraq government to allow 50 army bases to remain in Iraq permanently. This is as stupid as the decision to invade Iraq in the first place and is sure to guarantee that the war will never end. Why? Because Iraqis don't want a foreign army stationed in their country any more than we would want a foreign army stationed in Oregon. The current administration does not want to end the war, it does not want to get out of Iraq, and it is trying to tie the hands of the next president with treaties that continue the stupid policies that have bankrupted our country, morally and monetarily.

 

 

May 27, 2008 Letter to the editor

The Bush administration used fear to get the American people to support the attack on Iraq and now those same people who lied to us then are using fear to get us to agree to keep fighting in Iraq, saying we can't pull out for fear of the disaster it would cause. No evidence is even being offered to support that claim, they are counting on fear to do its work again. The administration was telling lies then and we have no reason to believe them now. McCain is repeating the Bush mantra of fear.

April 30, 2008 Letter to the editor (published)

Regarding your Monday editorial, "Saying one thing...", it is not only the continuing deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan that is causing suicidal stress among American soldiers. According to returning veterans themselves it is the dissonance between the purported mission and what actual gets done. When a soldier goes over to protect American freedoms or bring democracy to Iraq and does so by shooting innocent civilians at roadblocks, or invades a home of a suspected sniper and ends up killing women and children, that is the cause of the suicidal stress. If our soldiers knew that what they were doing was nobel, as Bush as claimed, then the suicide rate would be much lower. The rate is higher than expected because the soldiers themselves are realizing that there is no connection between protecting American freedoms and the killing that they are doing. More and more soldiers are feeling like criminals for carrying out their orders, hence the higher suicide rates. It is called a cognitive dissonance, trying to accept to opposites as true. Something has to give. So don't denigrate the soldiers and say they are suicidal over extended tours, they are above that. The reasons are more ominous.

March 23, 2008 Letter to the editor

Look at America just after the attacks of 9/11. We had an opportunity to bring the whole world on to our side. I had emails from friends in China and India expressing sympathy for America. Bush then squandered that moment. Not only that, he has squandered every bit of good will that remained toward America with his egregious (that word again) invasion of Iraq. With the war, Bush has squandered EVERYTHING. Lives, fortunes, resources, good will, all gone with the war. And there is nothing to show for all of that after 5 years except an ousted dictator. Big deal.

March 22, 2008 Letter to the editor (published)

Why should we get out of Iraq now? The answers to that question were given in detail at the Winter Soldier hearings in Washington D.C. this last weekend.

The hearings were ignored by the mainstream media but the veterans of the Iraq war were telling stories that should have been heard. We are sending ordinary young men and women to fight a needless war in Iraq and those that return in one physical piece often have been adversely affected by conditions of war.

Some reported egregious killings of civilians by fearful soldiers who have no way of knowing which civilian may or may not be carrying a bomb. Some reported revenge killings after gun battles or explosions where buddies were killed.

Women soldiers are reporting rapes that were not reported while they were in uniform because of fear of reprisal or indifference. They report that military rape is rampant, even in the U.S. Coast Guard.

So to answer the question of why we should get out: we are damaging a whole generation of young people by forcing them to kill and be killed for what are no longer valid reasons. Many are coming home damaged inside and the suicide rate is an important story that should be headline news. Why the major newspapers ignored the hearings is a mystery to me.

March 21, 2008 Letter to the editor

The only thing Bush is able to say that the war in Iraq has accomplished is the ousting of Saddam. He says that getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do, so I guess that means he thinks that getting rid of Saddam was worth the cost of 4000 American lives, 30,000 wounded American soldiers, and projected costs of close to three trillion dollars before it is all over. He and his war supporters are outrageously out of touch with reality. There is no proof that the war has made us safer from terrorist attack. Just the opposite is true. The lack of attacks upon the U.S. since 9/11 has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. Those who are fighting and those who support the fighting are deluded by administration propaganda that only the uninformed can possibly believe.

March 10, 2008 Letter to the editor.

Jews believe that their God made a covenant to give all of the land of Israel to the Jews forever. That is worth considering only because of the great number who hold it to be true. Normally, if a person or a group of people made such a claim they would be laughed at. You can't just take someone's land because you think God said you can have it. Can you?
Roger Williams pointed this out to early American settlers as they took land from Native people in the New World. He said the Natives owned the land, not the King, and therefore it should be paid for, at least. Roger Williams' point of view did not prevail.

What happens when a people, or when you personally do something you know to be bad? First you try to justify the action. If you can get God to justify your actions then your mind can be at peace for as long as you believe that. Doing a bad thing and covering it with an excuse, a belief, or some other high-sounding reason makes it possible to live with what is called a cognitive dissonance. History is full of examples.

The Euro-American advance across North America, at the expense of the Natives is one. We excused ourselves with the inevitability of "Manifest Destiny." Or we claimed, as Ronald Reagan did, that "God gave us this great land." Sound familiar? That is what the modern day invaders of Palestine have done. They appeal to stories in their traditions that claim God gave the land of Palestine to them. Their stories are full of wars where natives were slain, women and children sold into slavery, the usual stuff. Many have read about those events in the Bible. It was a terrible thing to do, march into a land, slay the occupants and appropriate their lands. How can a people live with that as part of their history? They do it by overcoming the dissonance with a claim that makes them feel better: God told us to. He gave us this land. So now they can feel justified in their horrible actions because they have convinced themselves that God is on their side. The accounts and the justification were written about after the events.

Another way to justify an action is to diminish the wronged party by claiming "they weren't using the land" or "there were not many of them." Both of those excuses have been used by Americans and Israelis. Never mind that the invasion and the ensuing deaths were the cause of there not being "many of them." But there is no way that any land grab can be justified. Claims that God gave it to you can't hold up under intelligent examination. Religious claims that divest others of their rights are not valid. If a person wants to practice a religion that does not destroy the rights of others, then I have no complaint. But your religion cannot justify killing other people and taking their land. Settle your cognitive dissonance some other way. God is not on your side.

March 7, 2008 Letter to the editor,

"We took away their country and their means of support, and it was for this...they made war. Could anyone expect less?"
This sounds like something someone could say about the situation in Palestine after the state of Israel was carved out of occupied territory. But it was said by American General Philip Sheridan, concerning the Euro-American treatment of Native Americans. Furthermore, according to Hitler's biographer, John Toland, Hitler often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination of the Native Americans, and used it as a model for his extermination of Jews and Gypsies. It seems that those who learn from history are as likely to repeat it as those who do not learn.

February 29, 2008 Letter to the editor

Which countries have profited the most from U.S. spending on the war on Iraq? Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Which country has gone into debt amounting to three trillion dollars? America. Which U.S. corporations have made billions because of the war? Duh! Whose plan was this? It sure is stupid, spending money on a war that has nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks; spending money on fancy weapons to fight a war against folks who are effective with home made bombs. The war has benefited all oil exporting countries and corporations, but it has not done anything about reducing the threat of terror around the world, it has only exacerbated the problem. This is just plain stupid. And just today (Friday) the White House repeated the claim that the war on Iraq was a response to the 9/11 attacks, a claim that is not backed by any evidence and is contradicted by all studies. Our soldiers are dying for nothing. After all, what have we got for it? We are now a nation without basic morality that tortures and kills even the innocent. The war is a failure in its own goals, it is a flop as a correct response, and its continuation is going to ruin America more surely than any terrorist could hope for. If you support the war you make the enemy happy and some of them very rich.

February 24, 2008 Letter to the editor,

By all measures, the war policy of Bush, which invited al Qaeda to Iraq, has made the world more dangerous, has produced more terrorist wanna-be candidates than we can kill in our lifetime, and continues to exasperate our allies. The Republican party candidate, John McCain, promises to continue what has only been a disaster.

We have Republican supporters touting the present policy as being able to win a war on terrorism when it does not even confront the real reasons for terrorism. The closest that The Oregonian has come to setting it straight about the reasons for terrorism was the piece from the point of view of an al Qaeda member. At least there it was pointed out that our fight against terrorists will continue as long as we offer unblinking support to the state of Israel. None of the candidates for president in either party have that issue on the table. That is like trying to promote literacy without teaching spelling. Only Ralph Nader dares mention it. If anyone really wants to end terrorism they have to first confront the Israel-Palestine issue. It has always been the main reason for the terror. Nothing else even comes close.

February 14, 2008 Letter to the editor,

The war in Iraq continues long after the reasons for it have been shown to be false. The war is not about terrorism related to the 9/11 attacks. The war is truly about establishing U.S. bases in the Middle East. Right now a 15 square mile air base is being built as part of a plan for a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq, which is the original goal that was obscured by Bush administration obfuscation. The war has exacerbated relations with friendly nations and has increased the number of potential terrorists, ordinary Muslims who see no other way to combat the giant that can drop 100,000 pounds of bombs anywhere it wishes. The bombs dropped from our planes do not advance our cause. They do fit right in with revenge and escalation, the sign posts on the road American is traveling with Bush.

There can be no end to this road until American policy attends to the stated reasons for terrorism. The terrorism that most concerns us today did not begin on 9/11. It began when Israel took land from Palestinians. Until that truth is recognized we are doomed to kill and be killed. Every major terrorist of the past 30 years has stated that the reasons for resorting to suicide bombers, airline hijackings, hostage takings and roadside bombs, have to do with Israel's theft of land in Palestine, with U.S. support of Israel, and Western countries' collaboration with Israel's continued theft of more land, with Israel's growing settlements in Palestinian lands. Israel apologists counter that Muslims are lobbing rockets and sending bombers against the people of Israel. I ask, well what would you do if someone stole your land and the nations of the world ignored your cause? Israel forces Palestinians to live in squalor, to live as captives in their own lands, deprived of water and land rights. Violence is often the result of forcing an intolerable situation on a people. With their backs against the wall and with no other alternative, a people use the only weapons that they have left. There are Israeli citizens who know this to be true and they petition their government to right the wrongs done. Yet their efforts are ignored by the U.S. press, which seems to blindly support Israel's suppression of Palestinians. I know this letter is too long to get published, but I don't care about that. What I care about is asking you, the editors, to make sure that the truth gets out, instead of just being a funnel for administration and Israeli propaganda. There will be no end to terrorism as long as the reasons for terrorism are ignored. The Bush lie, that "terrorists hate our free way of life," is just more distraction, meant to keep Americans from the truth and to protect the continuation of the war, a war that profits many corporations but no one else. It hurts us all, however, in the long run.

February 8, 2008 Letter to the editor

Friday's front page features a red letter quote from Romney. It is an outrageous bit of propagandizing as he quits the nomination race. He claims we are a nation at war but neglects to add that it is a war that we started and we are fighting a country that did not attack us.

February 5, 2008 Letter to the editor,

Fighting terrorism without seeking the reasons for terrorism is a fool's fight, as Bush has proved.
One of the big problems in the world today is the number of people with nothing to lose, and they will always be dangerous. American foreign policy and corporate policy can be faulted for creating some of that problem. Violence is often the reaction to an intolerable situation, and there are many such situations deemed intolerable by people in all countries and all walks of life, but especially in countries where the rich have not only all the wealth but also the political power. It is shortsighted of those rich and powerful to perpetuate what the masses see as intolerable conditions. The end result is violence, from all parties. Those on top use wars and police power to keep people down. Those on the bottom with nothing to lose but their lives will offer those up, finally, as we are seeing today in the war we are fighting in a country that never attacked us.

February 4, 2008 Letter to the editor,

This past week Rep. Ron Paul said, during one of the Republican debates, that the war on Iraq is wrong, that al-Qeada was not in Iraq before we started the war, and that no Iraqis attacked us on 9/11. No one disputed the truth of his statements. During another news broadcast a soldier who had been in Iraq declared that his reasons for fighting in Iraq were so that we don't have to fight "them" here in our own land and because of what "they" did to us on 9/11. Where did the soldier get his view of reality? Who are "they" and "them" in his mind? Ron Paul tried to get the truth out, and John McCain, sitting next to him, rolled his eyes and took a drink from a water bottle. Not one of the other candidates acknowledged the truth of Ron Paul's words. No wonder we are able to send young men off to kill Iraqis for a lie. They have put their trust in their leaders and have been misled by all of them, from President Bush on down the line. 4000 have been sent to their deaths, and for what? By all accounts we are less safe from attack and we have more enemies than before 9/11.

January 12, 2008 Letter to the editor,

John Newman writes ("Palestinian Issue not be-all," Letters, January 12, 2008) "Iran's fanatical mullahs...want to destroy Israel." There is no shred of evidence for this point of view. First of all, what "fanatical mullahs" has he heard or read himself? Does he know and read Persian so that he has a correct translation of what has been said or is he just repeating third-hand comments? For instance, here is what Iranian President, Ahmadinejad, said at Columbia University last year:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
This is a far cry from saying "Israel must be wiped off the map," which is how the President of Iran has been misquoted. A bad translation was promoted by those who want to foment conflict with Iran. John Newman is just parroting the misinformation. But don't take my word for it, go to http://democracyrising.us/content/view/736/164/, and read "Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel." "

Now, put yourself in the shoes of a Palestinian. It is 1948 and the rest of the world has given your land to a bunch of foreigners. Sure, the Palestinian issue is not the only issue, but if it was your country that had been given away, I bet it would remain at the top of the list. It is time for us to understand what has happened in the Middle East and stop repeating inaccurate information.