Monitor archives:
Copyrighted material LETTERS
All correspondence should be sent to We reserve the right to edit letters as needed.

The Iraq War

This Is The House that George bought.

This is the War, planned in the house, that George bought.

These are the beliefs, that created the land, that fought the War, planned in the house that George bought.

This is the soldier, that did his duty, to protect the beliefs, that created the land, that fought the War, planned in the house that George bought.

This is the family, that morns the soldier, that did his duty, to protect the beliefs, that created the land, that fought the War, planned in the house that George bought.

This is the Country, we're told is evil, that born a man, that fired a shot, that made the family, that morns the soldier, that did his duty, to protect the beliefs, that created the land, that fought the War, planned in the house that George bought.

These are the contracts, to rebuild the cities, paid with the profits, that came from the oil, that's pumped from ground, that's in the Country, we're told is evil, that born a man, that fired a shot, that made the family, that morns the soldier, that did his duty, to protect the beliefs, that created the land, that fought the War, planned in the house that George bought.

These are the campaign contributions, made to the leaders, that failed the Nation, by selling our trust, to the allied firms, that got the contracts, to rebuild the cities, paid with the profits, that came from oil, that's pumped from the ground, that's in the Country, we're told is evil, that born a man, that fired a shot, that made the family, that morns the soldier, that did his duty, to protect the beliefs, that created the land, that fought the War, planned in the house that George bought.

Brian Coleman (Boca Raton)

We're hearing a lot about victory lately and little about the chaos, suffering and body counts. We are nowhere near victory. We have not found any weapons of mass destruction, we have not caught or know where Saddam is, there is no democracy in Iraq. What have we won? Our army's might over the Iraqi army? Well how impressive is that? Theirs is an army that has been battered for thirty years and has had weapons inspectors destroying their weapons for the last ten. Who do you think would win?

Dr. Maurice Cayem

The U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Paul Celluci, finds it "incomprehensible" that Canada's ships in the Persian Gulf would not automatically turn over possible Iraqi war or human rights criminals to the U.S. I find it "incomprehensible" that the U.S should have such an ignorant and undiplomatic ambassador.

Tom Trottier (Ottawa)

Why did diplomacy fail for Iraq? Because Saddam Hussein found powerful protectors who gleefully neutralized the effects of the sanctions imposed by the UN, thus wrecking the peaceful disarmament process.

In the New York Times article "Iraq Pipeline to Syria" (4/17/03) we read: "Under United Nations sanctions, Iraqi oil could be legally exported only through the oil-for-food program. Revenues from oil sales could be used only for food, medicine and other necessities. But the government of Saddam Hussein found several profitable ways to circumvent the program, among them the pipeline to Syria. The diplomat estimated that the Iraqi government reaped about $1 billion a year from the illegal exports to Syria...United Nations diplomats said that the pipeline, which carried 150,000 to 250,000 barrels a day, was an open secret in the industry and the United Nations Security Council. Council members' attempts to get an explanation from Syria were blocked by Russia, France and China."

Duplicity of the superpowers caused the war. It is time for the media to point out the real culprits of the Iraqi war and it is time for the war protesters to direct their ire in the right direction.

Alexandert Kimel (Fort Lee, NJ)

The Lost History of The U.S. and Iraq

The picture of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein while concluding a sale of biochemical weapons from the U.S. to Iraq illustrates just how faulty the foreign policy of the United States has been since the end of WWll. Obviously, most of U.S. foreign policy since the Second World War was focused on countering the communist threat from the then Soviet Union. The objective was to extend economic and military support to any country (regardless of type of government) that was (at least on the surface) opposed to Soviet communism. So too, the U.S. also made overt and covert efforts to undermine foreign governments that opposed the United States. As a democratic country, the U.S. was -- and still is -- willing to support brutal dictatorships so long as those dictatorships serve in our economic and military interests.

The end of this war should also mark the begining of the end for this hypocritical foreign policy. As a citizen of the United States of America, I am demanding that legislation be passed that outlaws this policy and extends the same military and economic embargo of Cuba to all dictatorships across the globe. These dictatorships should also include those monarchies established by coup d'etat. The only way to throw off this yoke of hypocrisy is to outlaw it alltogether. Perhaps then, will all nations recognize the United States as the true leader of the free world.

Joe Bialek (Cleveland)

No Cheering Over Liberation At Baghdad Hospitals

Doctors can't even give surgical patients full anesthesia! Just when I thought I couldn't cry any more.

Beth Grimes

The crude and callous looting of Baghdad hospitals amid the urban nightmare of gratuitous violence and desperate survival is certainly appalling, but it was not unpreventable, nor unique. Rather, it is the very predictable outcome of reckless disregard perpetrated on peoples and nations around the world on a daily basis. From the malign neglect of the IMF in South America to the brutal dismemberment of the Balkans by the World Bank, America's ruling class gives not a whit about the suffering of humanity. They never have.

Jay Taber

What happened to free speech?

I don't like Madonna's music, don't listen to the Dixie Chicks and have never heard or seen Dannie Glover or Tim Robbins, and I think we did the right thing in getting rid of Saddam Hussein. However, when I hear that the Bush Administration and/or the Republican Party has threatened the livelihood of these people by contacting their employers or people with whom they have contracts by implying that dire consequences will accrue for supporting people who speak up against the government, I sense something very wrong. In fact this is frightening. I fought for our country's freedom in Korea. We may not like what other people say but THEY HAVE A CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT TO SAY WHATEVER THEY WISH.

What if I say something that is not approved by our government. They do not have the right to contact my employer and threaten them with a loss of government contracts unless they fire me.

I thought that one of the reasons that Saddam was so evil was because he denied the Iraqi's free speech. What happened to OUR right of free speech?

John T. Vickers, Jr. (Louisiana)

Cheers for Scheer

Bob Scheer's articles and columns are a breath of fresh air in this era of frighteningly right-leaning news media. I, and millions like myself, rely on such columnists to echo how we are feeling about our Administration's reckless actions and unjust policies.

Alison Ehlers

Richard Perle's Conflicts Of Interest

Your excellent article on Richard Perle's myriad conflicts of interests as a member of the Defense Policy Board neglects to mention that he is also a Director of Autonomy Corporation.

Autonomy makes software to sift through emails and phone calls to identify patterns deemed to be suspicious (LINK). Subsequent to Perle joining the company as a Director, Autonomy signed contracts with the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Secret Service, the National Security Agency, and the FBI.

The company is now well-positioned to play a key role in the Defense Department's Total Information Awareness (TIA) initiative, which aims to develop a comprehensive database on all U.S. residents. TIA was discussed at the Feb. 27 meeting of the Defense Policy Board cited in your article.

Perle's role on Autonomy's Board has been controversial, and the UK's National Association of Pension Funds has urged members to oppose Perle's re-election at the company's annual meeting today (May 8) in London.

Revelations that U.S. security policy may be compromised by high-level officials' profit motives should concern us all. We, the citizenry, must demand directly that government ethics rules be enforced. Remember "Travelgate," one in a series of scandal-chases led by opponents of Bill Clinton? If an independent prosecutor could be unleashed to investigate such issues of minor import, surely our elected representatives can work to remove the taint of conflicts of interest from national security policy-making. For starters, Perle must go.

Gabriel Demombynes

Pentagon Seeks "National Security" Exemptions From Enviromental Laws

Like most Americans, I still worry about protecting my family and our country. I'm also getting tired of having my worries preyed upon by some of our national leaders who are using "national security" to sell Americans public policies that we normally wouldn't buy. The Rumsfeld Plan is a good example.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has asked Congress to quickly pass legislation that would give the Department of Defense (DoD) unprecedented powers. The Secretary's bill would exempt defense facilities from complying with basic environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act and toxic waste laws. The plan would give the Secretary increased power to give defense contractors huge pots of money with virtually no public oversight. And the Secretary wants the power to eliminate the rights, jobs and pay system for civilian defense employees, the very individuals who deployed and supported our troops in Iraq. These personnel changes go well beyond last year's controversial homeland security bill.

When asked why the Rumsfeld plan was being rushed through Congress now, one White House insider honestly answered, "because it would never pass in an election year." That's another way of saying that we can sneak things through because voters aren't paying attention to what lawmakers are doing. I encourage all of this newspaper's readers and voters to start paying attention right now.

I support a strong Department of Defense. But I am not willing to unnecessarily sacrifice the health and safety of my family by letting DoD, which uses enormous quantities of hazardous materials, ignore the laws that protect our air and water. I'm also fed up with corporate contractors getting overpaid with my tax dollars. And I don't think that you reward the civilian defense employees who worked day and night to support our troops by asking them to do more with less or eliminating their jobs.

The Department of Defense just proved that we have the most effective armed forces in the world. Secretary Rumsfeld seems to be in a big hurry to fix a problem that doesn't exist. His plan defies common sense and reality.

David Wheeler U.S. NAVY (ret)

Bush Wants Rollback Of Public Land Protection

When the Interior Department released a rule stating it would no longer claim federal interest in numerous rights-of-way crisscrossing America's lands, it demonstrated that the Bush administration really could care less about protecting our National Parks, Monuments, Wildlife Refuges, and Wilderness areas. The Interior Department apparently does not take seriously its role as the stewards and protectors of publicly-owned lands.

Certainly the administration knew the public would never support such an assault on our lands. Otherwise, it would not have revealed its intentions to allow bulldozers into wild lands using an antiquated loophole -- known as RS 2477-- in the dead of night. I feel betrayed when those charged with protecting the public's lands instead make it easier for logging, mining, oil and gas, and off-road special interests to defile America's treasured lands.

Gregory Amour

How They Lie to You

I'm new to Albion Monitor but today read with great interest John Stauber's "How They Lie to You."

There is an irony here: in my attempts to find out more information about AM, I discovered information about how it's funded and what type of articles are published, and other important information about copyright. I did not, however, find what I was really looking for --a description of who is the organization behind AM. Without this type of information, how can I be sure that AM isn't a "third party technique?" If you're going to print this type of article, which I greatly appreciate, you ought to make yourselves more transparent -- indicate in an easily seen location WHO you are, and perhaps also WHERE specifically, you are physically located. If I subscribe, I want to be sure that I'm not inadvertently sending money to a corporation's home office in the Caribbean.

Carol L. Williams

Publication information appears at the bottom of every front page. An index to all front pages is available at

-- Editor

The Accomplices Of Andrea Yates

I loved your article. I think they should put Rusty on trial and give him the chair. He knew his wife was failing and changing -- he saw it with his own eyes. I wouldn't have let Andrea take care of pet goldfish let alone tutor and be solely responsible for 5 kids in that trailer. To me, Rusty should be tried and is as responsible as Andrea who carried out the act -- after all, wasn't he was supposed to be the saner of the two?


The Bush "tax cuts"

The Bush administration argued when it came into office that tax cuts for the rich were needed during a surplus, in order to give people their money back. The administration now argues that big tax cuts for the wealthy are needed when running a deficit, in order to stimulate the economy.

Meanwhile, basic services are being slashed around the nation. Schools are cutting back the school year. States are eliminating healthcare coverage. And the federal government appears to be descending into debt for the foreseeable future.

Perhaps members of Congress should ask themselves if the ultimate extension of the administration's tax logic -- tax cuts for the wealthy at every opportunity -- is really a sound fiscal plan for a nation with so many under funded public needs?

Matthew Silver

Cassandra's Corner

It's odd to me that you guys can post articles warning against the growing power of the United States Government and at the same time post articles promoting gun control. You tell us how Bush didn't actually win the presidency but advocate the removal of firearms from the homes of law abiding American citizens.

When democracy is non-existent, people have to take up arms to get it back. Without guns it is difficult if not impossible to wage war. Yap yap yapping about the loss of civil liberties is not going to bring them back. If things get really oppresive the only way we will have to get our rights back is to fight.

Our government is ignoring its own laws and you guys are advocating taking even more power away from the common man.

Joey Shabadu

Mark my words, write it down, take notice... there will be NO 2004 election. A nation threatened does not have the luxury of Democracy.


Comments? Send a letter to the editor.

Albion Monitor Issue 111 (

All Rights Reserved.

Contact for permission to use in any format.