Considering Richard Clarke and the case against Bush
Regarding Daniel Schorr's March 26 column "Was Bush fixated on 'getting Saddam'?": I find it hard to believe that the Democratic fundraiser from Texas, to whom Mr. Schorr refers, has much legitimacy. It stands to reason that Schorr's insider source must have had more than a little bias in repeating a dialogue former President Clinton had with our current President Bush during the 2001 presidential transition. I hope those who read this article aren't so naive as to assume Clinton could ever be an accurate truth-teller as the writer implies.
In regard to Schorr's reference to Richard Clarke, it has become increasingly evident that this former antiterrorism coordinator has little or no desire to make amends with the American people or even the relatives of those killed in the 9/11 disaster. If Mr. Clarke was truly concerned for the welfare of our country's citizens, he would have published his book after the November elections rather than making a transparent attempt to manipulate voter emotions. In addition, Clarke would have been more balanced and unbiased in his reporting to the Senate investigative committee about the failures that occurred prior to 9/11, instead of pointing his finger so heavy-handedly at the present administration.
The most unfortunate point about Clarke's selfishness is that his actions provide fodder for those very terrorists about whom was he was once so concerned. Those whose proclaimed attempt is to bring America down will find it to their advantage to watch a nation become even further polarized through such low-minded political subterfuge.
I believe that there was such an obsessive desire to get Saddam Hussein out of power from the beginning of the George W. Bush presidency that it blinded the administration to more immediate threats such as Al Qaeda. The comments or testimony from the likes of Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, David Kay, and CIA chief George Tenet seem to be building this case against the administration. And these are not loose cannons, but civil servants with documented integrity. Because of the Iraq war, it seems that now we have lost the world's sympathy, cooperation, and support in our fight against terrorism.
Regarding your March 26 article "Southwestern schools root out illegal pupils": Having been an educator in schools in Texas and Colorado for more than 25 years, I feel strongly that US tax dollars need to be used for the purpose they are intended: educating American children who are citizens, not illegals. The education of illegals in our schools is an extreme drain that is taking money that could be used for funding other school programs, such as special-education classes. Over the years I taught, the school districts were faced with regular budget shortages that limited school programs. Yes, it's expensive to root out and deport illegal immigrants, but our citizens deserve the best education money can buy.
Your March 25 editorial "Is Microsoft a Serial Abuser?" misses the point. Microsoft has very consistently abused its privileged position and established a dominant market position by relying on the slowness of judicial processes.
As a consequence, narrowly targeted remedies are irrelevant by the time a decision becomes finalized. I have yet to see a judicial process that is actually effective in controlling this company.
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.
Any letter accepted will appear in print and on www.csmonitor.com .
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 Letters.