toledoblade.com --

I cannot understand The Blade condoning an Oct. 27 letter writer calling Hillary Clinton a "jihadist." What is the point to name-calling? Does anyone even know what a "jihadist" is? It's a sad state of how this country has been brainwashed by the Bush Administration when this is all they can come up with.

Everyone seems to forget that as the World Trade Center came down Bush the Elder watched the attack with Osama bin Laden's relatives and Bush Junior sent planes to spirit them out of the this country. Wouldn't the Bushes be the "Jihadists"?

It's time for the truth to stand up and the name-calling to stop. Our liberties are being taken away one by one by the Republican President but the Democrats are called names. Our Founding Fathers would be shocked to see the use of metal detectors, watch lists, waterboarding, and wire taps, not to mention a private army ready to spring into action on the American people at a minute's notice.

Wake up America and see what names we should really be called for wanting our country back - patriots.

Marylyn Lucas

Northwood

Don't stop funding fight against terror

"I won't pay for my expensive cancer treatments anymore. I don't feel that sick." Some in Congress feel the same way about the war on terror.

However:

•Like cancers entering hosts, terrorists hide and take root in unsuspecting countries.

•Like cancers that attack different organs, terrorists attack many countries.

•Like cancers that attack their hosts by multiplying, infiltrated terrorists recruit from within.

•Like cancers that would spread until they destroy their hosts, terrorists plan to spread worldwide until they convert all host societies to their cancerous wills.

James M. Stewart

Shoreland Avenue

U.S.-India nuke pact rolls back progress

Regarding the Oct. 20 letter about the U.S.-India nuclear treaty, it is not just an "erroneous assumption" but a neglect of historical perspective. When the nuclear nonproliferation treaty was proposed in 1968 by Ireland and Finland, India and Pakistan were not nuclear states, and hence not qualified to sign it. Then, India had leaders with enormous experience in fighting colonialism and had witnessed the populations of two cities vaporized by a nuclear holocaust. So in 1954, India was the first to propose the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.

Real Indo-U.S. friendship has to be based on true American values and not as an adjunct for an hegemony-based U.S. foreign policy. The issue is what should India do to stand up for nonproliferation? We were the first to violate NPT. As of 2005, we have provided 180 tactical B61 nuclear bombs to NATO in blatant violation of Articles I & II. At the Seventh Review Conference of the NPT (May, 2005) the nonaligned nations reiterated their position on this violation. The writer also glaringly left out how we promoted the arms race in South Asia during the Cold War that has now come to haunt us.

The Bush Administration has destroyed 20 years of progress in nonproliferation by dismantling international law. It now talks of WW III. The world sorely needs leaders who can pull the planet back from this brink of disaster. Indians here will do well not to consort with the lobby of the merchants of death.

V. N. Krishnan

Bowling Green

India, Israel nuclear ambitions suspect

It is refreshing that in recent back-to-back editorials, The Blade pointed out the basic flaws in the much-touted India-U.S. nuclear treaty on one hand and not excluding India and Israel from the elite club of nuclear outlaws on the other. Both countries, whose reasons for declining to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty are well known, have made it hard for the world to believe that their intentions are not nefarious.

It would appear that India's undying desire to keep Pakistan under its heel and counter China's growing political dominance in the region was strategically rewarded by the ratification of the nuclear treaty by the Bush Administration. Guess what? Even the leftist coalition in the world's largest democracy is opposed to this deal.

India's "only-for-civilian-purposes" charade is thinner than a veneer. India has been using the enriched fuel for decades and is suspected of having a sizeable stockpile of thermonuclear bombs. What one fails to understand is the basis for our bias when it comes to North Korea or Iran (both signatories of the NPT). Human rights abuses and the innate desire to annihilate its neighbors by these regimes, among other things, have been cited. That makes India and Israel flawless celestial bodies.

Equally baffling is the unilateral belief that if there is to be a Middle Eastern state with nuclear weapons, it ought to be Israel. By protecting Israel's undeclared nuclear status, the U.S. has only aided in Israel's hubris to systematically eliminate and decimate anything that is oppressed and Palestinian. By denying others the same rights as accorded so readily to India and Israel without an iota of guarantee, we have further alienated ourselves and made our foreign policies more suspect.

Abdul-Majeed Azad

Perrysburg

Absurd to say Israel goaded U.S. into war

The Blade once again reflected its relentless determination to blame the war in Iraq on Israel in its Oct. 22 editorial, the large-type portion of which cast a suspicious eye on "Israeli intelligence before the Iraq war".

The facts are these:

•The United States received intelligence from a variety of allies before the war. Even those who opposed the war had little doubt that Iraq was cheating on the weapons of mass destruction issue. The question wasn't whether Iraq had a WMD program but how to deal with it.

•In the months leading up to the war, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared that Israel would return fire if attacked by Iraqi missiles, regardless of the effect on U.S. relations with regional Arab allies. This stance was a clear "shot across the bow" of President Bush's Iraq policy. Moreover, Israel's defense minister at the time said he was "not losing any sleep over Saddam" - diplo-speak for, "Don't do us any favors, George, we can handle Iraq just fine by ourselves."

•It has since been revealed that in a private prewar meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Sharon, the Israeli leader expressed grave reservations about invading Iraq. He stressed the need to have an exit strategy, and warned Mr. Bush not to let the war turn into an open-ended occupation.

Given the risks, to suggest that Israel goaded the United States into war in Iraq is not only inaccurate, it is absurd.

Rob Vincent

Perrysburg

Poets, church leaders lead way to peace

On Oct. 11, a letter from 138 Muslim leaders from throughout the world was sent to several Christian leaders. The 29-page letter titled "A common Word Between You and Us" calls on Muslims and Christians to work together for peace. Mona Charen's disparaging Oct. 22 column notwithstanding, this effort should be responded to by overtures from leaders in Christian and Jewish communities everywhere.

The Muslim leaders wrote that "Muslims and Christians together make up over half of the world's population. Without peace and justice between these two religious communities, there can be no meaningful peace in the world. … The basis for this peace and understanding already exists."

Another hopeful sign was the recent celebration in Ann Arbor of the birthday of Iranian poet, Jelaluddin Rumi, who was born 800 years ago. Two American poets, Coleman Barks and Robert Bly, read Rumi's works to an attentive audience of at least 300 people. These two poets have recently received honorary degrees in Iran for their work in introducing Rumi's poetry to Western readers.

Perhaps leaders of churches, mosques, and synagogues, as well as poets, may yet lead the way to peace.

Mary Lilly

Tiffin, Ohio

Permanent Link