Monday May 5

Letters

Beating war drums

Dear Editor: The New York Times recently reported that the commanders in Afghanistan asked for more troops from the White House because of increased al-Qaida activity there and in nearby Pakistan but were turned down by Bush because he still thinks that winning militarily in Iraq is possible. So much for the myth that Bush listens to the military commanders and supports them.

Also, it is irresponsible for Sen. Hillary Clinton to say she would bomb Iran if it attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, which Iran does not have at this time. The U.S. policy has been and will always be to help Israel with economic and military aid. Israel has nuclear bombs and can defend itself, which is a deterrent. It is doubtful that Iran will attack Israel with nuclear bombs if they had them because they know Israel would retaliate with its own nuclear bombs. The whole war talk against Iran at this time serves the Bush administration agenda of scaring us.

The U.S. foreign policy must be to negotiate, which we are now doing with North Korea over nuclear materials. We need leaders whose goal is to have a peaceful outcome and not to threaten other nations with hypotheticals and create more conflict. Clinton and Sen. John McCain too easily beat the war drums. We need a change in foreign policy and actions and not more of the same in the next president.

I support Barack Obama and his more thoughtful approach to conflicts.

Edith Groner,

Palo Alto



The war in Iraq

Dear Editor: Predictably, Gen. David Petraeus' appearance before Congress offered nothing new, just more of the same rhetoric couched in muddled language that the late-night comedians picked up and scorned with abandon. Petraeus dutifully delivered the White House-scripted version, allowing Bush to play for time until the end of his disastrous presidency. Bush is trying to assure Petraeus that he has all the time in world to achieve a mythical victory.

The congressional hearings were largely for public consumption and accomplished little. This charade turned out to be another White House victory, selling the war on a six-month installment plan. It's a monumental failure for the American people, the U.S. soldiers mired in a quagmire and the Iraqi people who have lost so many loved ones.

Every day brings us closer to our eventual demise and the day of judgment before our common creator. I wonder how all those neocons who have committed war crimes in our name will be judged.

Tej Uberoi,

Los Altos



Barack Obama

Dear Editor: Barack Obama started by saying his longtime minister was his "mentor," the one who officiated at his marriage and baptized his children, only to most recently denounce the same person. Whose support is he now seeking?

How did this man suddenly emerge to this level of prominence against a woman who has dedicated most of her adult life to serving the United States of America?

America, wake up.

Toni M. Villa,

Mountain View



Jimmy Carter

Dear Editor: Jimmy Carter is once again swimming against the tide, the flood of ignorance, suspicion and hubris, where solutions were/are sought with guns and threats. Carter will speak with the leaders of the "terrorists" (the infidels) with which our simplistic (or devious) government refuses direct contact. It's not democracy we seek to spread, but puppet governments that will do our bidding. The democratically elected Hamas as well as many others in the Mideast have made various threats but also continue to hold out offers of peace and acceptance - provided our "special friend" withdraws to its legal borders, which it refuses to do. Perhaps Carter can start a dialogue, and the extremists on both sides can be delegated to the "back row."

Unfortunately, there will continue to be some who call for the end of Israel, and a vocal group who will continue to view Palestinians as cockroaches to be exterminated. Both groups can be managed by the majorities. Let the process start.

Gilwee Walker,

Palo Alto





Genocide in Darfur

Dear Editor: Nicholas Kristoff has written many eloquent columns on the fate of Darfur. I respectfully suggest that he elaborate on the role of the Arab League and, for that matter, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which the league is a part of. Since he ignores the fact that this sizable United Nations voting bloc sticks up for its members states, of which Sudan is one, his words will not go very far.

In August 2004, the Associated Press reported that the Arab League rejected accusations the Sudanese government is guilty of genocide. In February 2005, Sudan's ambassador to the United States, Khidir Haroun Ahmed, was invited to speak at Stanford by the Muslim Students Awareness Network. The ambassador told the Stanford crowd that the Islamic Sudanese government is not pursuing a program of genocide in Darfur [http://tinyurl.com/5qduuo].

The Organization of the Islamic Conference has 57 U.N. votes - 22 of them from the Arab League. And they won't admit that there is a problem.

While the world dawdles on this matter, thousands more will die in Darfur.

Sheree Roth,

Palo Alto