In response to the Aug. 8 opinion "Radical Islam: New Marxism": Why can't U.S. citizens accept the fact the Islamic terrorists have waged war against the United States because of its foreign policies in the Middle East? What separates this simple thought are people like Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg and Molly Ivins. It's not the hate for freedom nor is it about being a Republican or a Democrat. It's our foreign policy, stupid! Louis Lorenzo

 

Bylas, Ariz.

 

In response to the Aug. 19 article "One huge arch": There are no pedestrians in Tucson except for vagrants. So if the plan is to spend $100 million on a bridge so the vagrant community can more easily walk across I-10, then by all means do it! Would the money not be better spent on continuing to resurrect Downtown, which has been dead for almost 50 years? Renee Mumford

 

Tucson

 

I am writing to give my support to Cindy Sheehan. I believe it is very important President Bush give her the respect she deserves and explain to her why her son died. She is not alone. All across America, there are wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers who do not understand why their loved ones are dying or coming back from Iraq wounded or severely disabled. Maxine Krasnow

 

Tucson

 

In response to the Aug. 19 article "Fraternity house rape case dropped": "She told an officer that she had gone into a bathroom where she was encountered the men." The sentence above was copied from this article on azstarnet.com. Is this the best azstarnet.com can do? If so, let me know. This is simply an embarrassment to our community. I'm no English major, so when I spot problems, I know they must be bad. Michael Carpenter

 

Tucson

 

In portraying the vigil for Cindy Sheehan as simply an anti-war rally, the Star missed an important dimension to the story ("Tucson-area vigils support mother's protest in Texas," Aug. 18). I, for one, came to support Sheehan in her quest to meet with the president. Who can forget that during the first presidential debate of 2004, President Bush himself said: "The hardest part of the job is to know that I committed the troops in harm's way and then do the best I can to provide comfort for the loved ones who lost a son. . . ."? Only the Star and the rest of the media! You don't have to be anti-war to see by refusing to meet with a grieving mom, President Bush is not doing the best he can. In fact, he isn't even treating her with simple decency. Sheehan puts a human face to the disconnect between the talk and the reality. Evan Canfield

 

Hydrologist, Tucson

 

I am writing in support of Cindy Sheehan and her efforts to directly communicate with President Bush while he is vacationing at his ranch near Crawford, Texas. Her efforts are only the beginning of much larger nationwide protests that may come this fall against Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq. Bush's ultimate aim is not human rights, not civil rights and not women's rights - it is all about oil imperialism. He and his neo-conservatives are bent on seizing the world's last major oil fields. Bring our troops home soon! Then impeach or otherwise remove George W. Bush from office. Dr. Peter Wehinger

 

Tucson

 

Cindy Sheehan lost her son in Iraq and believes he died in vain for an unjust cause instigated by an inhumane president. Ronald Griffin lost his son in Iraq and believes he died honorably in defense of our nation's security. Both soldiers volunteered to serve in the military. Sheehan has gone public with her grief with all of the attendant media publicity. Griffin has dealt with his grief privately - until now. His poignant and thought-provoking feature article, "She Does Not Speak for Me," was printed in The Wall Street Journal on Aug. 18. In the interest of balance, perhaps the Star could find space in its opinion pages to reprint Griffin's article, because these two parents epitomize the enormous gulf in American attitudes - indeed, world attitudes - regarding the Iraq war. Jim Merry

 

SaddleBrooke

 

In response to the Aug. 16 letter to the editor "Tell all the facts": I agree, you must "tell all the facts." The DM-50 took taxpayer money and used that money to lobby for an expanded DM mission, which was incompatible with the U.S. Department of Defense's overall strategic plan for the nation. The DOD rightly rejected DM-50's proposals because of urban encroachment, long-term water supply and growing public concern over expanded flight operations in Tucson. The DM-50 may actually have hurt David-Monthan Air Force Base's chances for long-term survival. That taxpayer money would have been better spent pushing intelligence, special operations or homeland security for D-M - that's where the future lies. Just how much of our money was spent on pricey consultants and lobbying trips to Washington, D.C., to push DM-50's ineffective proposal? We demand accounting! Jean de Jong

 

Tucson

 

In response to the Aug. 13 article "It's "Let's roll' not 'roll over' ": As a liberal, I still read Ann Coulter's columns to view a right-winger's slant on things and maybe for a laugh or two. But she really went off the deep end with her closing statement how insurgents in Iraq are "running smack-dab into our 'glorious' U. S. Military." Huh? The last time we used that kind of term to describe the military was probably the Civil War. I was in the military myself, and no matter how you look at it, it's certainly not "glorious." I'm sure our military today would be embarrassed to hear it's "glorious." Coulter may be the darling of the right-wing faction, but she really needs to get a grip and/or see a shrink. Her contact with reality gets more distant each week! I hope Molly Ivins gets back soon - it'll restore some sanity to the Saturday opinion page. Doug Alborn

 

Retired from the telephone company, Tucson

 

I'd be curious to know how many Star readers have five weeks of vacation after less than five years on the job. I'm guessing few, if any, have benefits that generous. George W. Bush, who has proclaimed like a broken record, "We are a nation at war," would rather spend five weeks in Texas riding his bike, grubbing out brush and raising money for his fellow Republicans than sitting in his office in Washington, D.C., attempting to figure out exactly how the United States is going to get out of the quagmire of Iraq. While our soldiers are blown up in inadequately armored Hummers in the third year of this conflict, he sits in the back seat of his armored limo and drives by Cindy Sheehan, seemingly too busy to stop and listen to someone who happens to disagree with him. I wonder if he can see through the tinted windows that gasoline has set yet another price record? Has there ever been a lame-duck president that was this lame so early? Homer Thiel

 

Tucson