Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
"A failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away"
Iraq? Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? Why just say it when you can keep on clouding the picture?
Tim Grieve [2006-02-01]
The letters thread is now closed.

  • And about those hijackers

    Actually, who knows how many hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Did you know that at least six or seven of the men identified as hijackers (surprisingly quickly - on 9/12) are still alive working regular jobs around the world? At least one sued the US for defamation. Makes you wonder how many of the remaining hijackers were guilty. And if the 6 or 7 that are still alive weren't part of the attack, who was? My guess is that they weren't Iraqi either.

    For readers who think I'm insane, do a little googling. It's not a secret that these men are alive - it's just not reported.

    --Anonymous
    Wednesday, February 1, 2006 07:06 AM

  • Don't Forget Point #3 on the Axis of Evil

    If you go the other way around the globe, Pyongyang, North Korea is 6869 miles from Washington, DC. Maybe Bush just hates places that are roughly 7000 miles away.

    -- Peter M.
    [Read Peter M.'s other letters]
    Wednesday, February 1, 2006 07:24 AM

  • Afghanistan? yes, ask the CIA . . .

    The US armed the Mujjahdeen of Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, and Bin Laden was part of this, paid by agents of the United States.

    The blowback we precipitated in 1979 came back to haunt us in 2001.

    -- vaporland
    [Read vaporland's other letters]
    Wednesday, February 1, 2006 08:30 AM

  • How Far Away is Iran?

    Surely, the president wasn't "thinking" anything.

    -- talk2me
    [Read talk2me's other letters]
    Thursday, February 2, 2006 06:04 AM

  • 7,000 miles away

    Thanks Tim Grieve, for pointing out this vague and deceptive phrase in the State of the Union Address. I thought I was the only one who was infuriated by it, since I hadn't seen any comment on it in the major newspapers. It certainly appeared to be intended to mislead those who are still in the dark enough to believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, since such a large part of the speech was a defense of the war in Iraq. Yet it was vague enough that Bush could claim he wasn't referring to Iraq if charged with dishonesty. So much for a "duty to speak with candor"!

    Those who question the war in Iraq are attacked as "isolationists", a totally false characterization of those who believe that the president's justifications for the war in Iraq don't hold water.

    Bush says "we need the support of our friends and allies" to win the battle against terrorism, and follows that by saying that the only alternative is American leadership Here at last, Bush is honest about his view of how the United States should conduct its foreign policy. It is the unilateral nature of the decision of our leaders to attack Iraq that cost us a loss of good will among many of our long-time allies.

    -- JLB
    [Read JLB's other letters]
    Thursday, February 2, 2006 06:58 AM

Letters Help