Letters to the editor

July 07, 2003

Our 'informants' have dubious motives

To the editor:

In February of 2002, our own CIA decided that the documents purporting to show that Iraq was trying to buy uranium oxide from Niger were fakes. The vice president's office, also in 2002, asked that this report be checked out.

So why did the president, in his State of the Union address in January 2003, cite this report as justification for invading Iraq? Why did Colin Powell cite this report in February 2003 to the United Nations as justification for invading Iraq?

Either the CIA and other intelligence agencies are not keeping the president informed, or the president lied to the American people and the world. Where did this fake document come from? Probably from the Iraqi opposition groups that this administration so warmly embraced.


Now the president wants us to believe that Iran is building nuclear weapons - this information comes from Iranian opposition groups. Would this be the same opposition group we have labeled a terrorist organization, the same group that was allowed to base its operations in Iraq, with Saddam's help? The same group that at the "end of the war" our own government at first allowed to keep their weapons and bases in Iraq and then later told them they must disarm?

Why is this administration willing to believe information given to them by groups that have a vested interest in overthrowing governments that they wish to overthrow? And why after Sept. 11 are our own intelligence agencies still not able to coordinate their intelligence and see that it reaches the president? It was because of these failures that over 3000 Americans died on Sept. 11, and we are no safer today. The president wants us to believe that he is doing all he can to protect America, but I for one have serious doubts and the rest of America should, too.

Anthony Cass

Free speech has its limits

To the editor:

I have a few qualms about the Constitution and one is the freedom of speech and that bugs me.

There is one single phrase to outline the meaning of that constitutional law.

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech," and that's it.

There is not a guideline to follow in detail. That statement lacks comprehensive understanding. Cross burning and flag burning, according to the Constitution, are freedoms of speech. That freedom of speech has been used today to arouse anger and it brings on civil unrest.

To those who think it's okay to burn the American flag and the burning of the cross because they reserve the right to freedom of speech are wrong.

Arthur P. Keifer

Space needed

To the editor:

I opened the "Children's Library" almost nine years ago, in memory of our only child, who passed away at the age of 10. This is a Christian-oriented library and is heavily used. As many as 500 pieces will go out at one opening. I now have items for all ages, including Ranger Bill, Story Hour, Sugar Creek Gang, Hardy Boys cassettes and many other items.

I am in need of another space and am unfortunately unable to pay a high rent. If there is a missionary minded person out there who has a space I can use, I would greatly appreciate it. You can contact me at 301-842-2618. Thank you.

Beverly Suffecool
Clear Spring

The Herald-Mail Articles