Bush derangement syndrome'

The Star, along with the majority of news organizations in the country, suffers from Bush derangement syndrome. Most of this is in the form of selective outrage, although it frequently includes lying by omission.

Everyone wants the heads of the president and the attorney general for what they call the illegal firing of eight federal prosecutors. I don't seem to remember any such outrage when President Clinton had Janet Reno fire all 93 federal prosecutors. The fact is these prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president. They may be terminated at will, with or without reason.

Everyone thinks I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby should be imprisoned immediately for his crime. They forget that he paid a quarter of a million dollars as a fine for a crime Richard Armitage confessed to. President Bush did not pardon Libby. He commuted the prison time, since Libby had paid such a large fine.

As usual, the press chose to ignore Clinton's 140 outright pardons. These included pardons for drug dealers, bomb-making terrorists and income-tax evaders. What about Clinton adviser Sandy Berger? He was convicted last year for stealing documents from the National Archives and then shredding them. Though convicted, he has yet to be punished and probably never will be. Where is the media outrage over this?

The press is constantly hammering the president for the Patriot Act as though this is the first time a president has curtailed some liberties for national security. They never mention that Presidents Roosevelt and Lincoln did precisely the same thing. Again, selective outrage.

If the news media want to be anything other than a tool for left-wing kooks, they should try objectivity in reporting. Then people might take them seriously.

— Ronald E. Kelly, Thousand Oaks

Put America's interests first

Re: Diana Thorn's July 19 letter, "Give Iraq more time":

In response to her mourning our "cowardly Congress," I admit to being as disappointed as she, but for a far different set of reasons.

Is she not aware there are already term limits in place? They are called elections.

Is she not aware that, in the most recent national elections, a lot of people across the country exercised the power of the ballot to vote in a Democratic majority, sent with the very specific message that more than 70 percent of the populace wants us out of Iraq?

Is she not aware that all in the world the Democrats are doing is what they were sent to Washington to do: "represent" the majority of their constituents, a concept apparently alien to those Republican senators who vote to keep us in Iraq, "voting their consciences" instead of representing their constituents?

It's interesting that the right constantly wails for "democracy in Iraq." How much more undemocratic can the current U.S. Congress be than what it's giving the majority of Americans who want us out of Iraq?

To paraphrase Thorn, if Congress would start representing its constituents, instead of voting its conscience, maybe then Congress will put the interests of America first.

— Bob Jackson, Simi Valley

Respect the flag

July 3, going out to pick up the newspaper, I noticed every mailbox decorated with our flag. Two young real-estate agents attached their fliers to the flags and put them in the mailboxes. My first thought was, "Oh, I don't think this is a good idea." I was right. Those little flags ended up lying all over the street.

Too many dumb Americans don't stop and think. All of us old guys realize that from the start of this great nation, we have fought for the flag and what it represents. And we all know that our flag should never be on the ground or hanging at night without a light. Right now in Iraq, guys and girls are dying for her, not for President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney, but for her.

So, please, if you see her lying on the street, stop and take her home.

— Jim Matousek, Simi Valley

Liberal diatribe'

Re: John M. Sherwood's July 17 commentary, "Our turn to fight unjust laws":

Sherwood should stay with preaching the Lord's word and stay away from insulting America and Americans with his liberal diatribe about how nice it would be if we let everyone in with no restrictions, etc. Thank you, but no.

— Joe Laraneta, Westlake Village

How long do we give Iraq?

Re: Michael Pringer's July 19 letter, "Democrats hope Iraq fails":

Pringer mentions "preliminary negative news and ignoring the positive." How many years have we been in Iraq? How many more years do we wait. How many more need to perish before Pringer admits failure? Do we wait five, 10 or more? Was Pringer also one of the advocates of continuing the war in Vietnam? They seem to be doing quite well after we left. U.S. businesses are having great success working over there, and thousands of Americans vacation there now. Just think, we could still have been fighting the war in Vietnam to defeat communism.

— George Pohoski, Camarillo