|
Letters Submitted to the Editor
Letters Submitted to the
Editor & Published
Sacramento Bee
Published, May 27, 2004
Vietnam lessons
Re "Service records," Your views, May 1: Thank
heavens we have letter-writer Robert Evans to connect the dots for us, so we can
see just how evil is John Kerry.If I understand Evans' letter correctly, if
Kerry had not become a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, then
Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos would not have fallen to the Communists, millions of
their citizens' lives would have been saved, the Soviet Union would not have
been emboldened to invade Afghanistan, Osama bin laden would not have been
brought to the scene and thus 9/11 would have been prevented.
I am impressed by Kerry's enormous power to influence the world. If only he had
used this power for good.
It's good to know the contributions of President Bush and Vice President Dick
Cheney to the Vietnam War had nothing to do with the fall of Vietnam. Without
Kerry's pesky interference, the Communists would have been brought to their
knees by George's and Dick's noninterference.
- Gabe Lewin, Davis
May 1, 2004
Sent to Sacramento BEE
Contra Costa Times
Los Angeles Times
How dare Senator John Kerry stand at Westminster
College and criticize the military’s lack of the right equipment when he,
himself,
voted against many advanced systems including body armor for those brave men and
women in the front lines.
Just how stupid does Kerry think we are?
Stuart L. Posselt
stuartp@ccrgop.org
Published in Sacramento Bee,
May 1, 2004
April 24,2004
It's no wonder Senator Kerry is
desperately trying to disavow his association with the Vietnam Veterans Against
the War (Bee, page 1, new attention for Kerry's anti-war past).
Let's connect the dots: Kerry
becomes a leader of the VVAW and soon South Vietnam falls to the communists.
Right after Vietnam falls Cambodia and Laos fall and millions of their citizens
die. The fall of Vietnam further emboldens the Soviet Union and the invasion of
Afghanistan takes place, bringing Osama Bin Laden onto the scene. So if I were
Kerry I'd run away from my past too.
Robert Evans
bobe@winfirst.com
Published in Sacramento Bee,
April 24, 2004
Dear Editor
Jamie Gorelick, serving on the 9/11 commission, is allowed to ask questions
about the failure to prevent the terrorist acts on that day as if she wasn't
directly culpable.
Rice was asked repeatedly by Gorelick why the national security office didn't
put together all the pieces of information that were coming in.
Now we learn from Ashcroft that while serving as U.S. deputy attorney general
in the Clinton administration, Gorelick wrote the memo that set up a wall
separating FBI criminal investigators and CIA intelligence agents that prevented
them from sharing critical information.
Gorelick should not be cross-examining witnesses; she should be required to
testify under oath about her own activities and answer who asked her to write
her memo and how she decided to prohibit the FBI and the CIA from cooperating.
Carl Burton, Sacramento
April 20, 2004
Dear Editor,
Jamie Gorelick, serving on the 9/11 Commission, is allowed to ask questions about
the failure to prevent the terrorist acts on that day as if she wasn't directly
culpable.
I watched on TV while Gorelick questioned national security adviser Condoleezza
Rice on how poorly the administration had done and how poorly Rice's national
security efforts had been in not preventing the 9/11 attacks.
Rice was asked repeatedly by Gorelick why her office of national security didn't
put together all the pieces of information that were coming in regarding
terrorists who wanted to do harm to Americans.
Now we learn from Attorney General John Ashcroft that while serving as former
Deputy Attorney General of the United States in the Clinton
administration Gorelick wrote the memo that set up a wall separating FBI criminal
investigators and CIA intelligence agents that prevented them from sharing
critical information.
Gorelick should not be cross-examining witnesses; she should be required to
testify under oath about her own activities and who asked her to write her memo
and how she decided to prohibit the FBI and the CIA from cooperating.
The best that can be expected from the current direction of the 9/11 Commission
is another government whitewash.
Carl Burton
760 Estates Drive
Sacramento, CA 95864
Jan. 29, 2004
Dear Editor:
I received my “Official
Voter Information Guide” from our Secretary of State last week and after reading
about Prop. 56 I’m voting NO.
Supporters of Prop. 56
keep telling us it will bring accountability to Sacramento and force lawmakers
to take budget deadlines seriously (as reported in the Bee story of 1/23). I
think taxpayers would do well to heed the warnings of opponents who call it the
Blank Check Initiative.
Just last year
legislators came up with plans to increase taxes and fees by $65 billion! But
the taxpayers of the state were saved because it takes a 2/3 vote of our law
makers to pass tax increases.
The supporters of Prop.
56 apparently believe it was too hard to get those tax hikes passed so they
hatched a scheme to eliminate the two-thirds vote requirement in the Legislature
for tax increases.
They’ve got their scheme
wrapped up in a bunch of feel-good ideas that they tout as accountability.
After reading my voter guide I have come to the conclusion the reason Prop. 56
is on the ballot is to make it easier for members of the state legislature to
increase taxes. Vote NO on Prop. 56.
Sincerely,
Carl Burton, Published Feb. 10, 2004
Sacramento BEE
|
