What is left for Knute Berger to say [Mossback, "Whacking Iraq," March 19]? He can always shut up. What is wrong with people in Seattle? First we had Baghdad Jim, then the admirer of bin Laden's day-care centers in Afghanistan, Patty Murray, and the list goes on. Just shut up.
Bay Village, OH
Knute Berger's likening of Clinton's presidency to the Prague Spring is revolting. Those men were heroes, brave beyond belief. Clinton specialized in beating up on girls.
At the time of the Prague Spring, Berger and the "old lefties" were quite content to let our brothers and sisters in the former Soviet bloc countries live as slaves, and laughed at President Reagan's subsequent effortssuccessful efforts, as it turned outto free them. Now they are with us in the Gulf. The lefties were wrong then, and Berger is wrong now. History has passed Berger and his ilk by.
Thanks. I needed to hear it said that other people feel the way I do and that my increased need for Prilosec wasn't due to increasing hypochondria. I, too, have wondered why we exchanged our aspirations to become a great nation for the pretense we already are. Politics is like a reality show completely out of control: lie, cheat, form unholy alliancesanything to win.
Thanks to Knute Berger for so eloquently saying what I have been thinking about President Bush and his obscene war. I can only hope that the rascal will be thrown out of office in 2004, if not sooner. The man is a total discredit to his office and his country.
Knute Berger said it so well, I forwarded his article to friends in Holland, as evidence that we're not all completely insane.
I, too, look forward to the possible day the war crimes trials commence. On the other hand, I am growing convinced that the fix may already be in . . . at this point on the empire trajectory (if past empire models apply), it looks like we may be in for a pretty rough ride. If that happens, maybe I'll be lucky enough to share a cell with Berger and Geov Parrish!
THE CORRIE KILLING
After viewing the photos of Rachel Corrie's murder, it's obviousthe bulldozer driver deliberately ran over her ["Death of a Human Shield," March 19]. Why does America back a regime that practices genocide and apartheid? The American people need to be better informed of the true situation in Palestine and should demand an independent, unbiased investigation into her death.
From the tone that some of the discussion of Rachel Corrie's death has taken, I see that it is important to draw a distinction between an individual stepping into the street in front of a truck and a human-rights worker placing their body in the path of a human-rights violation and risking death ["Death of a Human Shield," March 19]. In most civilized countries at most points in history, the distinction between these two actions is recognized as immediately obvious; it is a measure of how far we have fallen in our moral sensibilities that this distinction needs to be pointed out now. Bravery and selflessness are always perceived and represented as stupidity by cowards. I only wish the cowards would hold their tongues until the corpse of their better had been laid in the ground.
James D. Newman
Geov Parrish's column about the death of Rachel Corrie ["Death of a Human Shield," March 19] sounds like the kind of deliberate, willful, one-sided, manipulative screed one would expect to find in Pravda. To hear him tell it, you wouldn't know that a favorite Palestinian tactic is looking for school buses full of Jewish children to ram with explosives-laden cars or waiting for a Jewish holiday to burst into a Jewish home and rake every man, woman, and child at the dinner table with machine-gun fire.
The poor Palestinians Parrish piteously bleats about recently burst into the bedroom of a 5-year-old Jewish girl and riddled her body with bullets. Another peaceful Palestinian burst into a home in Elon Moreh, my adopted town, and killed half the members of one family as they sat down to a Passover meal. A friend's son was critically wounded in a Palestinian attack on his school that left five classmates dead. This has happened hundreds of times, and would happen thousands of times were it not for the vigilance and proactive movement of Israeli forces. As one who understands that the only thing standing between Jewish civilians and massacre is Israeli troops, I can tell you how glad we are to have them there.
As for Corrie and her friends, none of whom acted as human shields for Jewish kindergartens (evidently their compassion only extends to people who hate America and anyone who isn't Jewish), their rage at the U.S. seems to be their only unifying thread. Only weeks ago, Corrie was photographed burning a picture of an American flag. The spark that set her off? America's determination to take out Saddam Hussein, destroy his weapons of mass destruction, and liberate Iraq.
How soon is Geov moving out of town? We'll take up a collection for his moving expenses if he bumps up his exit date.
The larger community can better understand the nature and causes of the violence in Israel, including the regrettable and probably unintended death of Rachel Corrie ["Death of a Human Shield," March 19], by pondering four questions: (1) When the U.N. in 1947 voted to divide Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state, which side accepted the division, and which rejected it and sent its armies against the other? (2) Which side more recently proposed a settlement by which Israel would cede 97 percent of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority, and which side refused to discuss it or to make any counterproposal for peace? (3) Which side is trying to ward off and prevent suicide attacks from the other, and which side is doing nothing to prevent its own population from making these attacks? Which side is essentially the aggressor, and which is essentially acting in self-defense? (4) If the U.S. were attacked on numerous occasions by suicide bombers intent on the destruction of the U.S. and causing death to innocent civilians, how would the U.S. react? I think the last question has already been answered since 9/11.
Donald P. Krainess
I noticed that Geov Parrish's "The Official War Glossary" [March 19] was missing one key word: freedom. You know, the right of the United States to do whatever it wants, for its own benefit, with no regard to the suffering of others.
When I hear our president use the word "freedom," I am disgusted. Here's my definition of freedom: acting freely out of compassion, not selfishness.
DUMBER THAN DUBYA
Once again the left shows that it considers snide remarks to be better than critical thinking ["The Official War Glossary," March 19]. How people like Geov Parrish can sneer at a man as intelligent as GWB with a straight face never ceases to amaze me. My guess is that Parrish figures that the fact that he's not struck down by lightning for his lies proves there is no God. But then, why root so hard for the minions of the demon, Allah?
Parrish should keep it up, though. He is vastly entertaining.
Critical thoughts? Write to Seattle Weekly, 1008 Western, Ste. 300, Seattle, WA 98104; fax to 206-467-4377; or e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org. By submission of a letter, you agree that we may edit the letter and publish and/or license the publication of it in print, electronically, and for archival purposes. Please include name, location, and phone number.