Letters

(2 of 3)

For Smarter Intelligence

To those who claim that nothing could have prevented the 9/11 attacks, the failures of American intelligence agencies say otherwise [April 26]. The provocative leads on activities of known al-Qaeda members that were not adequately pursued make it clear that both the FBI and CIA could and should have done much better. Complaining that hindsight is 20/20 does not absolve these agencies. The tips and memos they received were not meaningless gossip but important information. We need to put more serious effort and resources into the U.S.'s intelligence infrastructure to prevent future attacks. It's better to do that than launch pre-emptive wars.
CAROLYN KAHANT
Ingram, Texas

Checking Bill's Record

Your article "Did Clinton Do Enough?" [April 26] described what Bill Clinton's Administration did to stop Osama bin Laden. The Republican Party would have vilified any action Clinton took that ended in the death of bin Laden. The Republicans would have jumped on Clinton's acts as proof that he was engaged in something wrong or illegal. Did Clinton do enough? Who knows? But had the CIA assassinated bin Laden on presidential orders, Clinton would have been roasted.
CAROLE SHUMWAY
Seattle

It should have been a simple matter of Clinton's telling the CIA director to find bin Laden and shoot the so-and-so. But government officials got caught up in legalities. That's what happens when lawyers monkey around with policy.
TERRY REDFEAR
Greensboro, N.C.

Should Bush Say He's Sorry?

Columnist Charles Krauthammer's "The Trouble with Apologies" [April 26] missed the point. As Krauthammer stated, Franklin Roosevelt did not apologize for Pearl Harbor, Harry Truman did not apologize for dropping atom bombs, and Clinton did not apologize for the Oklahoma City bombing. But those men did not pre-emptively launch a war against another country. By invading Iraq unnecessarily, by misleading the American public about the WMD threat of Saddam Hussein and his so-called ties to al-Qaeda, Bush put American lives at risk and U.S. influence on the line. For that, he owes the American public an apology.
RITA L. MCKEE
New York City

Thanks to Krauthammer for articulating the political reality behind a presidential apology, appropriate or not. The only thing Bush has done wrong since 9/11 is to stop emphasizing how truly difficult the war on terrorism is and will continue to be. Our enemies will sacrifice everything to destroy us. There is nothing to apologize for when it comes to forcefully combatting terrorism.
CARL BROWN
Grand Rapids, Mich.

I DON'T expect bush or any other official to apologize for terrorist attacks. But true leaders admit their strategic errors and try to fix them, especially when they cost billions of dollars and American lives. The combination of arrogance and simplistic, black-and-white thinking ensures that this Administration will never recognize error in its radical policies. If the climate in Washington is poisoned, it is because of the meanspirited, self-righteous tone set by the Bush White House. There is a failure of leadership.
JOHN T. COMPTON
New York City

A Doctor Gone Wrong

One shouldn't forget that Abdel Aziz Rantisi, the Hamas leader who was killed in an Israeli missile attack [April 26], was a pediatrician. Pediatricians specialize in maintaining children's health and growth. They should have an underlying respect for human life. Where did Rantisi go wrong? When did he abandon nurturing life and turn to cultivating hatred among adolescent Palestinians, openly applauding young men for blowing themselves along with the innocents around them to bits? A destructive influence is now gone from the Palestinian fabric.
LUCY RUBIN
Pretoria

Bold Steps in Iraq

Re "New Thugs On The Block" [APRIL 19], on the insurgency of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Shi'ite militiamen: After years of diplomacy failed to bring Iraq into compliance with U.N. resolutions, the hard decision was made to employ military intervention. In international relations, humanitarian military intercession can be justified. The U.S. took a bold step in Iraq, even if it was also strongly driven by its national interests. It is unfair for European countries to condemn every U.S. action in the Middle East. Thugs like al-Sadr prove that people are ready to destroy their homeland for personal gain and power. You cannot deal with hoodlums by resorting only to diplomacy and negotiations. The U.S. has risked its troops, resources and security to tackle evil and greed in Iraq. For that, it should be praised.
RAJIV THIND
Christchurch, New Zealand

The increasing violence in Iraq raises questions about the Bush Administration's policies in that country. Bush has no real answers and no concrete plan for how to successfully deal with the insurgents there. All he can say is that the U.S. will not be cowed and will still transfer sovereignty to the Iraqis at the end of June. He wants to stick to that date to show that Iraq isn't Vietnam and to boost his chances of re-election. I'm sure Bush hopes the symbolic transfer of power will take attention away from the 9/11 commission hearings, which have cast doubts on his leadership.
DEEPAK KUMAR VIDHYARTHI
Muzaffar, India