LOTS OF LIES
From 1993-2001, America had a president who lied about whether he had an affair with a White House intern. Since 2001, we've had a president who sent soldiers into war in Iraq based on the lie that Iraq's leader was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. He lied when he said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat against us. He lied about the military's torture of Iraqi prisoners of war and the government's surveillance of American citizens.
Corporate executives have become obscenely wealthy by lying to their stockholders. Some of our best athletes have lied about whether they took steroids. Congressional members lie to us when they're accused of committing crimes, and then, when the evidence is too overwhelming to ignore, they blame the other political party.
In Charleston, a married state representative, who campaigned on family values while carrying on a public affair with another legislator, pulled a gun and threatened South Carolina Electric and Gas employees who were inspecting power lines on his property. The legislator unconscionably blamed the SCE&G employees for the incident. Parents lied about their home addresses so their children could attend the prestigious Buist Academy, and the school's principal acquiesced. When 11 students from Wando High School were arrested for armed robbery, that school's principal blamed the media.
We hear that today's youth are jaded, detached, and cynical. We read cheating is on the increase in our schools and colleges. As adults, we wonder why the younger generation doesn't respect their elders like we did. Why don't our children pay attention to us? The problem is not they don't pay attention to us. The problem is that they do.Chris Lamb
MINI-SERIES FALLS OFF THE PATH
Until recently, I've been unable to determine if Michael Graham is a bold liar or just plain stupid. His latest article ("Angry Anniversary," Views, Sept. 6), however, made me realize that he's both.
Graham speaks in defense of ABC's docudrama The Path to 9/11, which has received much criticism for its use of false information to take blame away from the Bush administration and drop it on the lap of Bill Clinton. Graham states, "The film points out that President Clinton refused to give the order to kill Osama when we had him in our sights in 1988," and refers to an opening scene in which a CIA agent telephones the White House to get approval to assassinate Bin Laden, whom the agent has located. In the film, White House officials refuse to okay the agent's attempt and hang up the phone. This scene, to which Graham directly refers and cites in defense of his argument, never occurred in real life.
Another scene in the film shows how Bin Laden was able to escape capture by learning that his phone calls were traced, and by reading of such efforts in the Washington Post when, in the real world, it was the ultra-conservative Washington Times that released such information.
It certainly shouldn't be overlooked that Cyrus Nowrasteh, who is proud to identify himself as a conservative activist, who Rush Limbaugh claims as friend, and who has made his disdain for Clinton publicly known, was a scriptwriter of this film.
If Graham is to continue pushing this BS on us, I hope he does so through a different medium (maybe ABC?) because his false and foolish contributions are a tarnish upon City Paper.Rob Groce
RIGHTS AND WRONGS
Will Moredock wholeheartedly endorses the comments of letter writer George Steele to the P&C who stated: "When I have to surrender my freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for the sake of your perception of safety and security, our enemies have already won."
I assume that sentence refers to the right of privacy. The right of privacy is not expressed in the Bill of Rights. Assuming for the sake of argument that this right is implied in the Bill of Rights, I wish to point out that no rights are absolutely guaranteed. A constitutionally protected right may be offset by an overwhelming other interest.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that an overwhelming interest of any individual state or the federal government trumps an individual's otherwise protected right. If this weren't so, there would be no defamation laws. Further, when our country is at war, rights can more easily be curtailed, and no reasonable person can say that Al Qaeda has not declared war against us.
The Supreme Court has also stated that the president, through his attorney general, can act unilaterally to protect the security of the country. This prerogative has been used by several previous presidents.
Mr. Steele refers to "your perception of safety and security." I gather that Mr. Steele does not perceive that our country is in any danger. Perhaps we have just been lucky that there have been no further terrorist attacks in this country and that nobody intends to harm us. Perhaps the terrorists that England captured, intending to board US planes, are completely innocent of any such intent.
That's not my "perception." I perceive that we are in great danger and we must act both offensively and defensively to prevent any further attacks.Irving Rosenfeld