1029

I regularly check Toledo's The Blade as a matter of keeping up with what's going on in my home town.

Today, I took a look at the letters to the editor for the last week or so and was struck almost dumb by a few of them.

Soldiers' job is to defend their country

Reading the Sept. 10 editorial, "A lethal milestone," about the 1,000 military deaths in Iraq, reminds me of something that I have not seen nor heard in the media.

Not to minimize these soldiers' deaths or take away the horror of any war, I wonder why these men signed the papers to serve and protect their country?

My time in service (1953-1961) was a period when all men of 18 were eligible for the draft and had to register. There is no draft today. It is strictly voluntary.

Were none of these men aware that there could come a time when they would be asked to defend and fight, even to the death?

Perhaps we should all wait until this country is invaded and then commence our battles (9/11 comes to mind). This could take us back to the time frame of the Revolution when the battles were fought here.

Would it not be more productive to salute these brave men on a continuing basis rather than make every statement sound as if they died in vain?

Bill Scantlen
Whitehouse, Ohio

No, let's not minimize their deaths, Bill... they signed the papers -- that relieves the Bush administration of any responsibility!

Paraphrasing what Michael Moore so eloquently states at the end of Fahrenheit 9/11, those who sign up to "serve and protect" this country do so with the understanding that they will not be placed in harm's way unless absolutely necessary.

Considering that (as Bush has admitted) Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001, and considering that Saddam Hussein made eleventh-hour overtures to the United States hoping to stave off the imminent attack, I would say that this war was -- to say the least -- not necessary.

Reading on...

To show Abu Ghraib photos is treason

I find it amazing that we have a commission investigating the Abu Ghraib prison "abuses." We're talking about people there who want to kill all Americans. You say the American people and the world are "shocked." What would be shocking is if our prison guards were using rubber hoses, cutting off fingers, and threatening to cut off heads like the terrorists did. How you can blame Donald Rumsfeld for Abu Ghraib is a mystery to me.

There are billboards in Florida that state "We Bare All. Couples Welcome." That doesn't seem to shock anyone. We have New Yorkers undressing in the streets as some sort of protest. That isn't shocking. We have strip clubs all over Toledo - the entire country - and that isn't shocking. We abort the unborn, and half of America doesn't care. Turn on your TV, and much of that is filth. All of the premium channels are filthy, and that isn't shocking. It must be all right: We have people paying to see it.

If I used the filthy language that is seen in many movies, you wouldn't print this letter, although I don't believe that it would shock many of your readers. But somehow some Americans find it shocking to undress a few terrorists. And call it abusive. Get real.

What is shocking is that the media published all of those pictures for the world to see. They are the ones who are responsible for giving this information to the radical Islamists to use, as you say, "as vivid recruiting tools for terrorism." That's where the treason lies.

Richard H. Baxter, Sr.
Temperance, Michigan

I'm going to guess that Richard is a regular Rush Limbaugh listener since what happened in Abu Ghraib was merely "undress[ing] a few terrorists."

Clearly, the Bush administration has been successful in equating Iraqis with terrorism. Clearly, the Bush administration has been successful in making the Iraqi people appear to be nothing more than a murderous, anti-American horde.

And finally...

Stumbling on words means unfitness?

Many people are dismissing George W. Bush's competency because once in a while he stumbles over his words, something he openly admits. People then look to John Kerry, tall of stature and tremendous in his ability to speak in public.

Flash back to the 1930s. Would we have been so quick to dismiss Franklin D. Roosevelt as a viable president had we known he couldn't stand up?

By the way, during that time a man in Germany quickly rose to power because he was a great public speaker and said what everyone wanted to hear.

Matt Sussman
Bowling Green, Ohio

To paraphrase Matt:

Be wary of intelligent people who are capable of articulating their thoughts and ideas for they surely are holocaust inciters-in-waiting.