Letters to the editor

Editor,

Here are some thoughts regarding Mr. Kreitman’s August 9 column ("‘Vittey and the ‘Red Rooshins’”) which includes his statement about "the people of any nation” whose "governments messed up.” First, as French diplomat Joseph de Maistre has observed two centuries ago, "Every country has the government it deserves.” Subsequently, people carry, albeit to some degree, responsibility for their governments’ deeds. Second, one may say that the countries who are harboring aggressive plans of conquering, subjugating or wiping out other nations, have always been led by messed up governments.

Millions of people fought, as Mr. Kreitman did, against the Nazis not because the German government was "messed up,” but because this war was forced upon them as the only means of defending their way of life. At the end of WWII, another "evil empire,” i.e., the Soviet Union, raised its head by imposing its will on the Eastern Europe.

I lived in the post-war USSR and I vividly remember the anti-American and anti-Western hysteria spewed from all directions day and night. To present the "cold war” as United States-driven, as Mr. Kreitman does, is at best misleading. The "iron curtain” fell under Stalin’s direction, and it was lifted only after his death.

There are still plenty of people who, on the one hand, idealize the communism philosophy and close their eyes on the facts of the Soviet tyranny. On the other hand, their eyes are widely open on any perceived or actual United States misdeeds. Yes, America committed a number of mistakes in her foreign policy. But as Winston Churchill observed, "Americans will always do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the alternatives.” It is much more preferable than claims by either secular or religious fanatics that they are the holders of the ultimate virtue.

Vladimir Kaplan

San Mateo

Pelosi takes personal problems to Congress

Editor,

It’s so typical of the Democrat congress, lead by an apathetic Pelosi, to ignore crucial energy bill and just take off to their prospective vacations. I wish I could just take off for a month. Pelosi gleefully vowed to not view nor consider any energy bill that came from President Bush. Her goal as madam speaker appears to be nothing more than a game of trying to outsmart someone she has professed to be a failure. She dislikes Bush and that’s fine, but don’t take your personal problems to congress. Was she voted into her position because we wanted a leader to act like a sophomoric child? Even Obama has changed his mind about the energy issue. I don’t call it flip-flopping and neither should anyone else. I call it shifting gears to accommodate the rough road ahead. Even Obama recognizes how crucial this bill is. Congress, in its blatant pursuit of snubbing President Bush, is also snubbing us, we the people.

Phyllis McArthur

Foster City

Bailout of Freddie and Fannie

Editor,

While home repossessions and foreclosures reach an all-time high, the darling government mortgage Mclenders received a sweet bailout. Holding a staggering $5.2 trillion of mortgages (two-fifths of the total), Freddie Mac and Fannie May moved aggressively to purchase worthless sub-prime mortgage securities hoping to make a killing and reward their less than astute executives with fat bonuses. Congress’s response to the crisis makes little sense.

The mortgage ceiling, targeted to low income borrowers, has been raised from $417,000 to $625,000. The Federal Housing Administration insures mortgage loans for low income families that only require as little as 3 percent down payment. None of the Freddie-Fannie executives have been held accountable for gross mismanagement and no checks and balances have been imposed to dissuade future speculation and outright fraud.

Last year, the CEOs of Fannie May and Freddie Mac made a combined total of close to $60 million in salaries. At the very least, the government should demand that none of the top executives should receive bonuses and take an obligatory salary reduction of 20 percent, for playing fast and loose with the people’s money — for the duration of the bailout. Finally, taxpayers should be compensated for the risk they have undertaken by receiving a portion, say 5 percent, of the total valuation as shares of stock.

Jagjit Singh

Los Altos

Humility is no solution; military action is a solution

Editor,

Keith Kreitman makes the following points in his article, ("‘Vittey’ and the ‘Red Rooshins’” in the August 9 edition of the Daily Journal) regarding the Iranian takeover of the United States embassy in 1979 and the holding of American hostages for well over a year. This was a student plot "using a phony charge as an excuse to take over the U.S. Embassy in Teheran and, on an onsite impulse, to hold U.S. citizens hostage…”

The obvious take-away points from this sad episode in American history should have been: Countries that hate the United States will use phony excuses to harm us (if they feel they need excuses at all); "on site impulses” can get out of hand, quickly reaching a point of no return; only the credible threat of decisive military action by the U.S. led to the release of the hostages, literally at the moment of Ronald Reagan’s inauguration as President.

Amazingly, instead of applying these obvious lessons to the present crisis of Iran’s emerging nuclear threat, Kreitman instead advocates that with a new American president, the United States should show "a little humility” and engage in "a little munching of humble pie.” Why does Kreitman have so much trouble understanding that diplomacy (with the U.S. as the clear driver, and with specific time limitations) backed up once again by the credible threat of decisive military action is the only way to resolve this?

Larry Yelowitz

Sunnyvale