Not all of Lebanon supports Hizbullah
Regarding "Emboldened by US jibes, Hizbullah prepares for war" (Feb. 8): This article portrays Lebanon as a haven for bloodthirsty Hizbullah warriors. But this doesn't describe the sentiments of the majority of the Lebanese people concerning the situation in southern Lebanon.
Although Hizbullah is militarily in charge in the south, an invasion of Israel would be vehemently opposed by the vast majority of the people and the Lebanese parliament (elected by the people). It would be suicide for Hizbullah to carry out an operation without the support of the people at large, and Hizbullah knows it. The Christians, Druze, Sunnis, and many Shias in Lebanon are not members of Hizbullah, and they would resist any move by Hizbullah to destroy the balance of power and create havoc in a country trying so hard to reenter the world stage.
Your article refers to Hizbullah simply as a "protégé" of Iran, making no mention that it is a recognized political party in Lebanon; and that, although unpopular outside Lebanon, it is represented in the Lebanese government. It also fails to question the Israeli claim that Hizbullah has 10,000 rockets ready to launch at Israel. It is possible Israel would make this claim to justify assaults on Lebanese civilians. Although unnamed Hizbullah sources are quoted as saying a Lebanese attack on Israel is inevitable, I believe it is Israel, with its claims of Hizbullah's new rocket arsenal, that seeks a green light from the US for an invasion of Lebanon.
"We have something they don't," says the Hizbullah insider. "We seek martyrdom, they love life. We can endure suffering, they cannot." I would suggest to Hizbullah that their reasoning is flawed. The desire for life and the freedom to live it is a strong motivation. Given the proper motivation to protect life and freedom, they are things which will be fought for. The desire to live trumps the desire to die any day.
"The man who wants Cheney's Enron files" (Feb. 8) makes clear what is going on at the General Accounting Office. Two very liberal Democrats, John Dingell of Michigan and Henry Waxman of California, are using a Clinton appointee, the GAO head, David Walker, for partisan purposes.
By statute, the GAO is empowered to conduct financial audits to ensure that federal dollars are not misspent. Prying into meeting notes of the executive branch is outside their purview. We want a new tone in Washington. These current dealings represent the old.
Kyle Edwards Hobbs, N.M.
David Walker needs to go after Dick Cheney and the Enron papers. This Enron story is the doings of President Bush and Dick Cheney. California had great troubles with energy last year, and now I am hearing more information about Mr. Bush having overturned an order President Clinton signed which effectively barred Enron from trading with California. Mr. Walker needs to ask who had Bush rescind Mr. Clinton's order regarding Enron. And he needs to ask for all the Cheney papers regarding Halliburton, his former company, as well as Iraq, Argentina, and Iran.
At the bottom line of the Enron scandal are these questions: Will all this make any difference? As soon as the bright lights are off, will it be business as usual? And most important, what, if anything, will this entire mess do toward the long-overdue effort for campaign reform?
The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. We can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number.
Mail letters to 'Readers Write,' and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, or fax to 617-450-2317, or e-mail to email@example.com.