‘If’ by Sawyer… Moskowitz, Gerteiny
Dear Editor,
My years around the poker table “if” dealt lots of laughs from the winners.
Imagine “if” we could place all our “ifs” at the foot of this new Key West statue.
Always thought the first visit to Heaven (“if” a Heaven and I make it) would be to run into God’s (“if” a God) library and check out my book to see His path for me, and “my” path taken.
Mike Sawyer, Key West, Fla.
Letter to the Editor:
Less Safe On Obama’s Watch
As a former naval intelligence officer on a high level staff (Top Secret Cryptographic clearance), I agree with President Obama that the breach of security associated with the Detroit-bound airliner is “totally unacceptable.” The warning signs were there, but the intelligence community failed to recognize, analyze and disseminate the information. This is the same type of failure which led to the 9/11 attacks and the Ft. Hood massacre.
Although only a small percentage of Middle East inhabitants are terrorists, almost all of the terrorists emanate from Middle East countries. We have to pay much more attention to travelers to this country from the Middle East and a few other countries, and our Department of Homeland Security has to work with foreign airports to beef up their security operations. We need many more intelligence officials who are proficient in Arabic and who can penetrate al Qaida networks in various countries, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen.
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration transferred a number of Yemini terrorists from Guantanamo Bay back to Yemen, and at least one of them was involved in the planning for the attack on the Detroit-bound airliner. President Obama wants to close down Guantanamo and transfer the terrorists to the U.S. mainland for prosecution. Will these terrorists be convicted of their crimes? Will they be executed? If not, how long will they stay in prison? Will they be eligible for parole? Will they spread their hate for the U.S. to other inmates? Why take a chance with these hard core terrorists? Keet them in Guantanamo.
We need President Obama to stop appeasing the leaders of countries that sponsor terrorism including Iran, Syria, and Somalia; and he has to cease bowing to leaders of the world, and appearing subservient to them. These actions are construed by terrorists as signs of weakness, which give the terrorists inspiration to attack us.
President Obama weakened the CIA operations, and the intelligence agencies in general, when he criticized the CIA for its interrogation techniques. Although some of these techniques might be unacceptable to the world community, we have to be able to somehow access information from captured terrorists. I believe the recent failures of our intelligence agencies to provide warnings of potential terrorist activities can be partially attributable to some apathy and lack of initiative within the intelligence community, and President Obama bears some responsibility for the climate of distrust among intelligence officials.
Janet Napolitano is not qualified to fill the position of Secretary of Homeland Security. We need a professional intelligence/security person in this critical position. Unfortunately, most high level federal positions, including cabinet positions, go to unqualified politicians for payback for supporting the President during the campaign.
Note: The President was deeply involved and approved the people for these positions.
The U.S. is less safe on Obama’s watch, and we could be susceptible to on-going terrorist attacks due to an appeasing and apologetic President, incompetent Secretary of Homeland Security, and weakened intelligence agencies.
P.S. Bring on the body scanners. At my age it could be exciting.
Donald A. Moskowitz, Londonderry, NH
To The Editor
It’s finally happened. Two events have struck stunning and seemingly insoluble blows to our already weakened democracy, January 19 and 21, 2010, respectively: the special election in Massachusetts to fill the Senate seat vacated by fighting liberal Ted Kennedy won by ultra-conservative Scott Brown and the 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision to uncap the limit on campaign contributions.
The former prevents Democrats in the House from sending a modified health care reform bill to the Senate, thus obliging them to pass the diluted but better-than-nothing Senate bill for the president to sign into law, one that can be improved upon later.
The latter will negatively affect every current and future issue—including global warming, wildlife, the national parks, outsourcing and health care reform—to be voted on by lawmakers, allowing corporations, including foreign companies abroad, to use their endless funds to lure and intimidate candidates and manipulate elections.
Not above the politicall fray, as the nation’s highest court is expected to be, while erroneously applying the First Amendment, the five nonimpartial conservative justices are no better than bullies and thugs, daring any individual or group to cross them, expressly predetermining the consequences of their vote, thereby casting to the errant winds common sense and justice for the many. In the president’s words, the decision is “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington. . .”
There are possible solutions, if the uncorrupted and truly civic-minded members of the legislative branch have the brain power, patience and fortitude to set them in motion.
(We can’t expect the likes of senators Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh who, with their spouses Hadassah and Susan, have mightily profited from their strong pharma/insurance industry affiliations or former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, also with ties to the private health insurance business and whose wife Linda is a high-powered Washington corporate lobbyist, to participate in any rectifying process.) What has finally been achieved by aggravated debate and negotiation must be enacted so that health care reform can begin. The president’s comments on this subject in his January 27 State of the Union address suggest an unshakable determination similar to that of past presidents FDR and LBJ, whose Social Security and Medicare acts, feared by many as socialist, are of such benefit to Americans today.
Democrats Sen.. Chuck Schumer of New York and Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, anticipating the Court’s 5 to 4 vote, have been working out possible ways to neutralize it: a ban on corporate political ads; stricter rules on campaigns and outside groups working together; and shareholder approval of political spending. Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida is urging Americans to sign his petition, saveourdemocracy.org.
Without serious redress of these unfortunate circumstances, our United States of America, already halfway there, will surely be transformed into the Corporate States of America.
Elizabeth Gerteiny, Westport, CT
