© 2002
The Nugget Newspaper
Sisters, Oregon
All rights reserved

Send us an email

Display Advertising
This is a PDF file. View with Adobe Acrobat Reader. 

The contents of the on-line edition of The Nugget represent a selection among the stories that appear in the weekly print edition.

Letters, letters, letters
The Nugget welcomes contributions from its readers, which must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Letters to the Editor is an open forum for the community and contains unsolicited opinions not necessarily shared by the Editor. The Nugget reserves the right to edit, omit, respond or ask for a response to letters submitted to the Editor. Letters should be no longer than 300 words. Unpublished items are not acknowledged or returned. The deadline for all letters is noon Monday.

To the Editor:

If it wasn't about oil why was the Ministry of Oil building the only building protected by the U.S. military during the looting and burning of Baghdad?

Dean Billing

* * *

To the Editor:

The September 2002 issue of the Veterans of Foreign Wars magazine contains a story describing the killing of 3,452 military and civilian Americans in 62 separate attacks by radical Islamists dating back to 1970.

The national origin of the people who carried out all of these attacks is from Middle Eastern countries.

Probably going unnoticed is that there have been four more attacks since the bombing of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 in which nine Americans were killed.

It is time Americans considered the implications of the history of terrorist attacks. Stop impugning President Bush's motives as war mongering or oil driven.

Are we becoming complacent because nothing catastrophic has happened since 9/11? Doesn't the history of these attacks suggest that there is more to come?

The second World Trade Center bombing occurred eight years after the first one on February 26, 1993. Does this mean we initiate pre-emptive attacks on countries believed to have terrorist associations? NO. But it does suggest that if there is a threat of imminent danger backed up by sound intelligence, then appropriate action should be taken.

I sense that much of the opposition to the war and criticism of every action of the administration is politically driven. Let me quote comments made by Al Gore on CNN in January 1998.

"Saddam must comply with the mandates of the world community. And if he does not, then the resolutions spell out exactly what he can face. If he believes that this is an indefinite process, he's sadly mistaken. If he does not have to comply with U.N. resolutions, he is simply wrong. And he'll find out."

So criticizing President Bush for what he did is to criticize Al Gore for what he said.

John (Jack) Berry

Back to front page