Reader takes issue with CR columnist (12/10/05)

To the editor:

I would like to offer a few comments on an editorial page column written by Mr. John Leo and printed in last Tuesday's (Nov. 29) CR, and what seem to me to be inaccurate and misleading statements in Mr. Leo's column.

Mr. Leo says “President Bush deserves heavy blame for his current predicament,” but then goes on to say that many of the President's problems would vanish if not for the biased and unfair reporting of the “elite news media” and that of the “major papers”.

It seems to me that the major news outlets have been extraordinarily gentle in their handling of the Bush Administration's agenda on a variety of national and international issues.

For quite some time I have found that for me, public radio and television, as well as numerous small and independent Internet sites have done a very good job of presenting both sides of various hot-button issues. I believe these news outlets generally are able to present the news content and comment representing both sides of the issues without resorting to the hostile shouting of insults and invective.

I wanted especially to comment on that section of Mr. Leo's column dealing with Rep. John Murtha's recent resolution before the House.

John Murtha had a long and distinguished service as a career Marine Corps officer and reservist, and was elected to Congress in 1974. He has been widely recognized as a military hawk and a knowledgeable and solid supporter of Pentagon initiatives and programs throughout his political life, while enjoying the respect of both sides of the aisle.

Recently Mr. Murtha introduced a resolution addressing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, and his action set off a firestorm of protest.

He was called a coward, among other things, and at first the White House was spiteful and contemptuous; that was quite ironic, given the fact that very few of the most vocal critics had ever found themselves on a battlefield with bullets flying in their specific direction. In any case, however within a few hours the House Republican leadership issued a one sentence resolution calling for “immediate withdrawal” of U.S. troops, and since virtually no one believes that would be possible or workable, the resolution was defeated by a vote of 400 to 3.

Here is where I believe Mr. Leo's column seeks to mis-inform and mislead. He suggests that the Republican one-liner calling “for immediate withdrawal (was) defeated by a vote of 400 to 3... though it was almost exactly the same as Murtha's.”

It was no such thing! Murtha's resolution, in contrast to the Republican version, says nothing about “immediate” withdrawal in the several sources in which I have found it, nor does it mention 6 months, or one year nor any specific time frame. What it DOES say is to begin withdrawal “at the earliest practicable date” and also calls for a “quick reaction U.S. force” and that “the U.S. Marines shall deploy in the region”.

Murtha also included 8 supporting statements for his resolution, one of which reported that above 80 percent of Iraqis want all foreign troops out of the country, and that 45 percent of Iraqis believe that attacks on foreign troops are justifiable.

In my view the Murtha resolution is a reasonable beginning point. The three major factions in Iraqi, along with the dozens of smaller groups, will have to get together to solve their own problems, and fanatical religious hatreds which span hundreds of years will not be solved by our military presence. That is, unless the American people are willing to expend more and more of the blood of our youth, and our resources at the rate of $6 billion per month

Late last week Republican Sen. John Warner from Virginia and one of the nation's most influential politicians acknowledged the $6 billion per month figure, and some observers have suggested that President Bush's “as long as it takes” time-frame could stretch 20 or more years.

Do most Americans believe this is a good thing?

Glen Priest

Portland[[In-content Ad]]