Column fails to note reasons to disagree
Dick Yarbrough's column ("What if my grandsons went to war?," June 9) was an interesting piece about him being both a grandparent and a patriot at heart.
However, there is one thing his column failed to do. It failed to look at the real arguments that divide people against and for the war. I agree our country is worth going to war for and it needs to be protected, but the real issue with Iraq is whether we needed to go to protect our country.
As time goes on, it is becoming more and more clear that Iraq had no connection to what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.
Our nation and the world were never presented good hard evidence to back up the arguments for going to war with Iraq. It is also becoming more evident that weapons that could threaten our country have not been found in Iraq.
The reasons we originally went to Iraq are not the same reasons most pro-war advocates try giving people today because they have realized the original arguments were wrong.
While I respect Yarbrough for his feelings as a patriotic individual and as a grandparent, we should not ignore the real reasons people do not agree on the war in Iraq.
- Clay Kimbro
Getting sensitive: Was it something he said?
Thanks to certain habitually offended groups, I am expected to continually apologize for the possibility that I might have said something offensive and then undergo "sensitivity training" so that I don't ever say a possibly offensive thing again, even though I don't really see anything wrong with what I said.
Of course, if I do this, I might possibly offend groups that are sane.
- Ernest Wade
Book, TV deals prove bride played system
As if the whole runaway bride thing isn't already overplayed, this recent news brief from the Denver Post's Web site, www.denverpost.com , says it all.
"'Runaway Bride' Jennifer Wilbanks is close to a six-figure book deal with Regan Books, the New York Daily News' Lloyd Grove writes. Wilbanks, 32, and her fiance, John Mason, also are working on a movie-of-the-week deal and a network television interview - both likely with NBC and the latter possibly with Katie Couric."
Well, isn't that precious? Now we find out the whole episode was nothing more than a stunt to gain fame and fortune, and her chump fiance was probably in on it.
I sincerely hope that the liberal apologists, morons and idiots who supported her and the families' need for "privacy" are happy; you got played for fools.
Thank God that District Attorney Danny Porter had the good sense to convene a grand jury and that a panel of decent people had the presence of mind to see the actual evidence of her crime.
Of course, this book and TV deal explains why she and her attorney were so willing to "get this over with" and offer a settlement to the city of Duluth and plead guilty to the lesser charge. She shrewdly played the system. I guess she will be able to live with herself, as it appears she has neither scorn nor shame.