DEAR EDITOR:
I am honored by Bill Paterson’s rebuttal to my column
criticizing Bush’s pro-war stance on Iraq.
DEAR EDITOR:
I am honored by Bill Paterson’s rebuttal to my column criticizing Bush’s pro-war stance on Iraq. He has taken the time to write his rebuttal with the kind of depth and intellect that all writers hope for in their critics. I know that The Dispatch readership stretches far beyond Gilroy, since I receive reactions to columns all the way from Salinas to Chico.
Here’s another perspective sent to me via e-mail regarding my column arguing against invading Iraq:
“I very much enjoyed reading your column. I commend you for your courage in stating openly and publicly your misgivings about the Bush administration’s machinations for a war against Iraq.
In fact, I think you accurately summarized and presented the feelings of the majority of people on this issue (and did so in your characteristically articulate fashion). I can only hope that the self-professed leaders in Washington get the message that is being shouted from all parts of this country and from (almost) all social groups: no war against an already-deprived and oppressed people.
Let the inspectors do their job impartially, without being forced to carry out any hidden U.S. agenda. In fact, it strikes me as odd (and ominous) that the very people who are constantly droning on about the virtues of “democracy” (American-style, of course) are, at this moment, deliberately ignoring what the vast majority of the American people are saying – or, at least, seem to be saying in my hearing.
Those who are pro-preemptive strike seem to be operating under the assumption that the Iraq issue is about so-called weapons of mass destruction; that may be true for some people, but not for the Bush administration. That “concern” is just a cover for their real aim, which is to remake the balance of power in the Middle East as part of a grand strategy of securing U.S. dominance everywhere forever (or for as long as possible). That is clear from Bush’s national security document as well as from papers done under both Rumsfeld’s and Cheney’s orders. It is, in short, old-fashioned imperialism.
This is a serious devolution from and betrayal of the founding principles of a republic; instead, this country is moving towards the grandiose aims of an empire.”
The letter was from James Membrez in Santa Cruz.
Kat Teraji, Gilroy
Submitted Tuesday, Oct. 22 to ed****@ga****.com
