Iraq policies under fire

Re “40 Die in Twin Suicide Attacks on Police,” Dec. 7

It is agonizing to see pictures of Iraqi police, who supposedly are the ones we expect to assume the defense of their country when American troops stand down, in unarmored trucks and without bulletproof vests.

How about a policy stating that every time a U.S. soldier is sent home, his or her armor is assigned to an Iraqi soldier? And how about some armored vehicles for those guys?

It’s getting more and more lethal over there, and we should be making it easier and safer for them to stand up.

MICHAEL SIEVERTS

Santa Monica

*

Re “Rumsfeld Stresses Optimistic View of Iraq,” Dec. 6

If Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is a student of history, he knows that Britain was defeated early in the 20th century in its quest for Mideast oil to fuel its ships. A win in Iraq is needed to drive both bad U.S. energy policy and fuel-inefficient U.S. cars and trucks.

ROGER NEWELL

San Diego

*

Re “Rice Warns Europe on Questioning U.S. Tactics,” Dec. 6

How can folks not see the obvious incongruence here? On the one hand, the Bush administration and its constituents claim the moral high ground on a variety of issues, notably abortion and gay rights. On the other, they support the death penalty and torture.

I’m curious to know how all these Christians square this in their minds? All sorts of justifications are being bandied about: “These are different times;” “We need to adapt;” “The information saves lives” (never mind the evidence suggests that information gained under these conditions isn’t reliable). However, if these people are truly Christian, the only question that matters would be, “Who would Jesus torture”? I think we all know the answer to that.

ELIZABETH BROYLES

Claremont

*

Re “Bush Criticizes Dean for Iraq War Remarks,” Dec. 7

President Bush and his cronies have it all wrong. Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean is absolutely right. If they think the Democrats do not support our troops, they couldn’t be further from the truth.

If Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al, support our troops, then why did they go about this war the cheap way? Do they think we forgot that our troops’ armor was less than acceptable or that we didn’t send in enough troops to win a war? Did I, as a proud Democrat, see my beloved country go after the entity that attacked our beloved land?

No, Mr. President, we Democrats have never relinquished our support for our troops; we support them all the way. However, in your desperate attempt to become a “war president,” you became the “warmonger.”

SPENCER SHIFFMAN

Calabasas