Letters

(2 of 3)

Those Campaign Ads: Whose 9/11 Is It?

Charles Krauthammer's essay "Why 9/11 Belongs In The Campaign" [March 15] rightly stated that Bush should be able to use 9/11 in his re-election bid because the terrorist attacks occurred on his watch. However, if the President continues to exploit images related to the attacks, he must be open about the entire 9/11 issue. Bush opposed creation of the independent commission to investigate government actions leading up to 9/11, and he has only reluctantly been cooperating with the investigation. The American people are mature enough to accept the truth of 9/11. Bush needs to let the commission do the job it was created to do.
JOHN MURPHY
Madison, Wis.

Krauthammer eloquently stated what I and many others have been feeling that 9/11 was a national event. I personally did not know anyone who perished during the terrorist attacks, yet I shared our nation's pain and sorrow. I also shared outrage, a desire for revenge and a determination to defend America. Bless those who lost family members or co-workers, but also bless our Commander in Chief, his Administration and our armed forces.
RICK RIOS
Vancouver, Wash.

Bush is more than disingenuous when he chooses to trade on images from 9/11 while the media have been barred from covering the arrival at Dover Air Force Base of remains of soldiers killed in Iraq. Bush knows that the images of U.S. casualties would be much more telling than a 9/11 photo. Although Bush happened to be the leader we turned to when our country was attacked, his true self is revealed by his waging a war that was built on the willful deception of the people.
PAT ROCCHI
North Wales, Pa.

If the use of 9/11 is justified because it was a tragedy that belongs to all Americans, then by the same logic, Bush should be running political ads that highlight the U.S.'s burgeoning job loss and towering budget deficit, as well as an erosion of civil liberties and a decline in environmental protection national tragedies that also belong to us all.
HILDA GRANT JONES
Farmingdale, Maine

A Good Thing Gone Bad

Your report about Martha Stewart's conviction for obstructing justice and other crimes, "Not a Good Thing for Martha" [March 15], stated that "Stewart was no ordinary Jane who traded on inside information to make a quick buck." But that misses the point. Ordinary Janes would not have had access to the stock-price information that was given to Stewart as a direct result of her wealth and position. That's why it's called insider information. The rest of us are just trying to level the playing field.
NANCY PARKER
Englewood, Fla.

I don't know any shareholders who wouldn't sell a stock if they learned it was dropping in price, regardless of how they found out. The Justice Department said the problem was not the sale but the lying. True, lying is wrong, but Stewart's lies were without intent to harm. This was a very selective prosecution. If the Justice Department is going to indict and prosecute every person who lies, it had better start recruiting lawyers. The real damage comes now. How many people will lose their jobs in Stewart's company because of this great legal "success"?
JUAN F. MONTALVO
Wellington, Fla.

Stewart failed to learn from the travails of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton: it's not the crime; it's the cover-up. Martha is not going to jail for using insider information to sell stock; she's going to jail for lying to federal investigators. She forgot that even rich people are not above the law, especially in a presidential-election year.
ANDREW C. RIGROD
Sherman Oaks, Calif.

Being unethical is not only wrong, it's bad for business. The guilty verdicts in the Stewart trial demonstrate that the worst possible public relations for a company's executive officer is getting caught in unethical conduct. If that isn't a strong motivation for taking ethics seriously, I don't know what is.
BRUCE WEINSTEIN
New York City

Whew! Now we can all sleep better since the feds got Martha Stewart off the streets. Middle Eastern terrorists are still at large, O.J. Simpson is free, but they got Martha. I hope she has a good recipe for sacrificial lamb chops.
GARY TAUSTINE
New York City

Curing the Haitian Headache

Your coverage of the U.S. military's return to Haiti after the overthrow of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide [March 15] clearly showed that the people of Haiti are incapable of governing themselves. It is time that we stop trying to fix the same problem over and over. Instead, the U.N. should authorize France to make Haiti a colony once again, for the next 20 years. During that time and with aid from other nations France would be responsible for disarming the rabble; creating a public school system with universal education; establishing a police force and a defensive army; rebuilding the civil infrastructure of roads, bridges and public utilities; forming a new constitution and judicial system; and bringing in new businesses. At the end of two decades, the U.N. could hold elections in the reformed country, and our periodic headache in the Caribbean could fade into the history books.
HOLMES BRANNON
Woodland Park, Colo.