Your cover story detailing the heightened tension between the United States and Iran underscores the folly of our Middle East policy since WWII (“Rumors of War,” Feb. 19). We intervened in Iran to overthrow the democratically elected prime minister and install the compliant, autocratic shah in 1953. As a consequence, we suffered the indignity of the hostage crisis in 1979 with Ayatollah Khomeini’s triumph. Since then we have rebuffed re-peated attempts by Tehran to improve relations. Now we are goading Iran to provoke an action that would “justify” a military response. It is truly a frightening possibility. Attacking Iraq has proved to be a failure; attacking Iran would be a disaster. John A. Bertsche Normal, Ill.
It baffles me that the Bush administration seems to be preparing for a military strike against Iran. It’s as if the American people’s voice at the polls has been completely ignored, in addition to the Iraq Study Group’s recommendation for direct negotiations. As a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is legally entitled to enrich uranium for nuclear power. We can only speculate as to why Iran limited the access IAEA inspectors had to its enrichment facilities, but baiting Iran for a provocation will not aid cooperation. The fact that Iran and Iraq are replete with oil while ExxonMobil earns record profits can’t be overlooked. Democracy promotion has a history of occurring in regions beneficial to American business interests. Unfortunately, it looks like the business interests will probably trump, once again, the health and safety of the nation. Justin Finney Austin, Texas
Why did you choose to display the dark montage of photos by Paolo Pellegrin under the heading “Modern Life in Iran”? The austere black-and-white depictions of fervent believers calling for boycotts of Israeli goods, men at the mosque, the obligatory black-clad woman, threatening images of war and the grave of Khomeini are not the stuff of “modern Iran.” A better title would have been “Fundamentalist Iran,” which is the only Iran we ever seem to see here in America. Modern Iran also includes progressive and secular Iran, women in bright headscarves and colorful jackets, people out for ice cream and movies, juice bars, shiny cars and cell phones that ring with the latest tunes. In the midst of all this warmongering, we’re somehow insulated from positive images of Iran that Americans might be able to relate to. I’ve visited Iran four times in four years, and it’s a country with a rich and beautiful culture infused with art, literature, music and delicious food, all washed down with plenty of tea and laughter. Elaine Hostetler Columbus, Ohio
I was angered by your cover photo showing President George W. Bush and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad together as two sides of the same face. This seems to put Ahmadinejad on equal footing with the president of the United States. His nuclear capability and ambitions make him a serious threat to the civilized world. He denies the Holocaust and has said Israel—one of our greatest allies—should be “wiped off the map.” This man is not a world leader, and putting him next to Bush seems to give him credibility as one. Todd Sorrin Boca Raton, Fla.
Both George W. Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have risen to power in their respective countries by whipping up their political base with misinformed rhetoric. Their subordinates shout down their critics, and both pop off with statements that have no place in building a coherent foreign policy. Both are driven to this kind of behavior as a tool to maintain the power they currently hold. They are partisan politicians and not statesmen or leaders. God help us that these two men have risen to the pinnacles of power and what they might eventually do with that status. John Lodal Boise, Idaho
As long as the nations of the world cling to the dubious myth that we can solve our problems by killing each other, someone’s daughters and sons, wives, husbands, parents and other kinfolk are going to be torn apart by someone else’s weapons of individual destruction. It will always be tempting to argue about the origin of these weapons, as our government is now doing with some of the weapons showing up on the bloody fields of Iraq, killing soldiers of the United States along with other soldiers and civilians who are dying beside them. Do we really want to play this tragic game with Iraq—or anyone else? Are we also ready to hear about the body count of Lebanese, Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans and others killed in the past few years by weapons made in the United States, paid for by Americans and distributed around the world? The words of an old song keep echoing in my head: “When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?” David A. Vogan Bellefonte, Pa.
In deploring the national budget deficit, Robert Samuelson directs attention to charts that show the growth of social insurance and related welfare programs since 1956 as if this were the underlying cause (“The Stubborn Welfare State,” Feb. 19). Nothing could be farther from the truth. What he doesn’t tell us is that if Social Security revenues and expenditures were eliminated from the budget, the deficit would be about $200 billion greater than it is, since the Social Security account is in surplus again this year. The plain fact is that social-welfare programs aside, tax revenues are insufficient to meet the cost of government operations, including the cost of the Iraq war. George Bush’s tax policies are clearly the major underlying cause, but this is aided and abetted by the enthusiasm of taxpayers for deferring payment on the government’s bills. Alexander H. Flax Potomac, Md.
How does Robert Samuelson justify including Social Security on his list of “welfare” programs? Why is he blaming the welfare problem on those of us who’ve paid into the system? As originally established—you had to pay in to receive benefits—Social Security was not a welfare program. I’m deeply offended to find that I’ll be classified as a welfare recipient if I’m lucky enough to recoup some of my contributions when I retire. The real problem is our friendly, helpful politicians who raided the trust fund and expanded benefits to include people who do not, or did not, contribute. You can classify the noncontributors as welfare recipients if you wish, but please distinguish them from the rest of us. Chuck McGee Cumberland, R.I.
As I read your article “The Way We Laughed” (Boomer Files, Feb. 19), I realized that what you were presenting was also my kind of humor. Born in 1930, I was an original consumer of the Little Rascals and Three Stooges. In college I was devoted to Mad magazine. As mom to a clutch of so-called baby boomers, I was the one who had them listen to Allan Sherman, Vaughn Meader and Tom Lehrer records. We watched “Laugh-In” and Smothers Brothers while I tried to explain topical humor and political satire to toddlers and grade-schoolers. They all grew up to relish those things, but it wasn’t an accident of birth. It was part of their family heritage. Liz deVries Delray Beach, Fla.
I enjoyed your article on boomer humor but was surprised that you didn’t mention Bill Cosby, whose comedy albums were a staple of my upbringing in the ’60s. His wonderful stories of growing up in the projects of Philadelphia (go-carts, tonsils, street football) reflected and even influenced my childhood. His albums were a place of common ground for my family and his recollections of sharing a room with his younger brother could have been pulled directly from my life. I recently gave my dad some old Cosby albums on CD. As we sat and listened, it was as if 40 years had washed away. The true joy of Cosby’s humor is that it’s still as vibrant and relevant today as it was in 1968. And if you listen closely, you can still hear the “thump, thump” of the approaching Chicken Heart. Chuck Beatty Akron, Ohio
In a one-page essay, Anna Quindlen has eloquently stated the case for pulling out of Iraq (“Tomorrow, Tomorrow,” Last Word, Feb. 19). Never have I read such a powerful, well-reasoned and logical presentation. While addressing some of the controversial issues, Quindlen brings a much-needed element into the debate—common sense. Putting aside the verbiage from all those sitting in their secure locations, she has brought to the forefront the most important issue of all: “There is no better way to support those who have fought valiantly in Iraq than to guarantee that not one more of them dies in the service of the political miscalculation of their leaders.” Exactly. Thank you, Anna. Charmaine Hantsch Belvidere, Ill.
As a former soldier in Vietnam, I appreciated Anna Quindlen’s concise and accurate accounting of the waste of lives and money in another futile attempt to impose our will on another culture. We should have learned from our mistake in Vietnam, but history repeats itself if politicians will not heed the past. Tom Fenstermacher Allentown, Pa.
For years I’ve lamented the injustice of this war only to have people admonish me that we need to support our troops. This always left me feeling frustrated and misunderstood. If only I could have said what Anna Quindlen says in her essay. As we look for a way forward, let’s remember that peace brings prosperity—two things any soldier would agree we want more of. Natalie Clancy Methuen, Mass.
