American pie need not be humble
In response to Daniel Schorr's Nov. 1 column "Bush and American humble pie": I cannot understand the reasoning in Mr. Schorr's recent commentary on US foreign policy. He confesses a lack of objectivity by admitting that the content of his work is biased toward liberalism, and strays from credibility by parroting the Democratic Party platform for this election.
Schorr offers as support for his arguments the opinions of citizens from nations whose media are controlled by their governments and have proved repeatedly that their anti-American propaganda is unsubstantiated. He goes on to cite politicians who have been elected in some of the most socialist-minded nations and whose self-interest has routinely clouded their foreign-policy decisions. These men are not statesmen, they are purely politicians.
Should a rational statesman like President Bush listen to those who are clearly irrational, or should he lead this nation toward the proper course of action? Iraq and North Korea are rogue nations who wish for nuclear weapons as a means to support their regional hegemony, which is the basis for the campaign against terror we must wage.
George F. Robertson
Regarding "Bush and American humble pie": Surely Mr. Schorr jests. George W. Bush exhibiting humility? This is a president who sits in the White House claiming to represent America. If he does, in fact, represent America, I suggest it is an emotionally immature one. Certainly he does not represent the majority of Americans. His presidency is, indeed, our misfortune.
Jemez Springs, N.M.
Regarding "Bush and American humble pie": Daniel Schorr's column is somewhat defeated by the words "American humble pie." The article is simply commentary that Bush and his foreign policy need rethinking. Red-blooded Americans may not react positively to eating "humble pie"; thus the headline ruins an otherwise excellent column.
San Antonio, Texas
Antiwar demonstrations were ignored
In response to your Oct. 28 news brief "Protests against possible US military action in Iraq drew large crowds": How is it that the Monitor, which I have read for more than 40 years and trust above all other newspapers to report accurately on events in this country and elsewhere, avoided any further mention of the marches and rallies that took place in cities around the US in opposition to a preemptive strike against Iraq?
Those of us who gathered in Washington, D.C., numbered by modest estimates at least 100,000 and represented the rich diversity of this country. We were demonstrating because we love our country and are not convinced that waging war against Iraq, despite the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein and the threat he poses, is wise.
I can understand why the Bush administration chooses to ignore those of us who have voiced opposition, but I cannot imagine why the largest antiwar demonstrations in this country since the Vietnam War are not worthy of appropriate coverage in the Monitor's pages.
In response to your Sept. 26 editorial "Finding this paper's founder": I love the story of the founding of the Monitor and the opening of the new Mary Baker Eddy Library, but I believe research will show that the Wright brothers' first flight took place in 1903. We here in Dayton, Ohio, are very conscious of the date.
The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. Because of the volume of mail we receive, 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.