Letters policy
We welcome letters, but please include your full name, address and a daytime
telephone number. We edit all letters for libel, length and clarity.
Send letters to: Letters, Illinois Times. P.O. Box 5256. Springfield, Illinois
62705. Fax: (217) 753-3958. E-mail: editor@illinoistimes.com
WHAT GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT?
U.S. Rep. Barney Frank and Beni Kitching think
President George W. Bush should be impeached [see
“Letters,” Aug. 18]. Let’s look at their
“reasons.”
(1) Bush got us
into an “illegal” war.
First of all, Congress approved the operation in Iraq, so there
goes any attempt to impeach the president for that. The cessation
of hostilities in the 1991 Gulf War was brought about by a
cease-fire agreement, not a surrender or peace agreement. We ceased
hostilities as long as Saddam Hussein abided by United Nations
resolutions. Hussein chose not to do so, as evidenced by these
pertinent points from U.N. Resolution 1441 [adopted Nov. 8, 2002]:
Recalling that its resolution 678 authorized
Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement
its resolution 660 of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions
subsequent to resolution 660 and to restore international peace and
security in the area [the Security Council]:
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in
material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions,
including resolution 687, in particular through Iraq’s
failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA
[the International Atomic Energy Agency].
2. Decides [. . .] to afford Iraq, by this
resolution, a final opportunity to comply with this disarmament
obligations [. . .]
We gave Saddam Hussein more chances than he
ever deserved to abide by the UN resolutions, and he refused.
(2) Bush is
“trying to destroy the social safety net that protects the poor, the disabled,
the sick, the elderly, and the middle classes.” As far as I know, proposing an alternate way of funding
Social Security isn’t an impeachable offense.
(3) Bush is
“trying to destroy the separation between church and state, a
bedrock of the Constitution.” I
don’t see how “separation of church and state”
can be the “bedrock of the Constitution,” because that
phrase doesn’t even appear in the Constitution. The First
Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.” Congress can’t pass laws establishing a
national religion, nor can they prevent us from practicing our
religion. Please point out a single instance where President Bush
has submitted legislation to do either, and we’ll talk
impeachment.
(4) President Bush
is “building a gulag archipelago of torture prisons
throughout the world that deny basic rights and due process to
detainees, and ignore the Geneva Conventions.” I’ve seen the reports on
Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prisons, and I never saw any
mention of President Bush’s being one of the perpetrators.
The people who were involved are being punished. As an aside, the
Geneva Conventions pertain to uniformed combatants for an enemy
country. The detainees are not uniformed combatants; they’re
terrorists.
(5) President
Bush is “giving tax cuts to the rich, which, along with
hundreds of billions of dollars for an illegal war, has recklessly
put our country intro serious financial debt.” First and foremost, everyone who pays taxes got a
tax cut, not just the rich. So can we please drop that tired old
lie? Repetition will not make it true. Because our country was in
serious financial debt long before President Bush took office, it
seems kind of silly to impeach him for that.
(6) President Bush is
“fudging the figures on global warming.” Now this is really interesting, especially because
scientists just recently admitted that their global-warming theory was
based on flawed data.
Grounds for impeachment? Not quite.
Kevin Johnson
Chatham
MARKET ADAMS HOUSE TO TOURISTS
OK, the Audubon Society owns the Adams House,
fair and square. It has the right to raze it and build whatever it
wants. Maybe what the society build will be really nice, but what
its members may want to consider is that if they want tourists to
visit their headquarters and sanctuary, it will have more appeal if
it’s connected to Springfield’s past.
If the Audubon Society is only interested in
preaching to the choir, then it should go ahead with its current
plan — bird fanciers will probably still visit the location.
But I would think the organization would want to draw as many
people as possible to its sanctuary to see the merits of its
conservatorship.
The Audubon Society obviously sees the merits
of a Springfield base. I just don’t think its members are
seeing the whole picture.
I’d have to check with the
visitors’ bureau, but I’d be willing to bet that
tourists aren’t spending a week or more in Springfield.
It’s probably closer to a three-day deal. And in that short
time, tourists are making hard decisions on what to see — the
Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, the Old State
Capitol, the Capitol Rotunda, the Illinois State Library, downtown
Springfield, the Lincoln Home area, the Dana-Thomas House, the
Vachel Lindsay home, the Lincoln Tomb, Camp Lincoln, the Grand Army
of the Republic Museum, the Henson-Robinson Zoo, Lincoln’s
New Salem, Edgar Lee Masters’ Petersburg, and so on. And just
where would the Audubon Society’s headquarters fall on the
average tourist’s to-do list?
The Adams House, because of its location on
Clear Lake Avenue, could be tourists’ first view of historic
Springfield. The Audubon Society has the opportunity to make a big
first impression. It can either build a headquarters that looks
like anything else, anywhere else, or have the Margery Adams House
and Wildlife Sanctuary, home of the Illinois Audubon Society
— a genuine historic tourist attraction.
I know it’s an old house. The Audubon
Society would need to build a new headquarters and fix up the Adams
House. It’s an added expense, but it’s also added
value.
If you’re going to be in Springfield,
you need to think Springfield. The past is the key to the future. If the Audubon Society
wants to have an impact and promote its cause, it should take advantage
of the tourist population. Connect the Adams House with the Lincoln
era, market it, and reap the rewards. There’s a saying in the
marketing profession: “Don’t look at this as an obstacle;
look at this as an opportunity.” And that’s my message to
the Audubon Society: The Adams House is your opportunity to connect
with Springfield’s past, with tourism, and ultimately with the
hearts and minds of those tourists to promote all that is important
about being good stewards and protectors.
Julie Bulli
Springfield
THANKS FOR GIVING HOPE TO KOOKS
I believe Fletcher Farrar is onto something
when he calls for us to act on our beliefs in ways that match our
abilities [“Summer in the city,” Aug. 11]. His way of
calling us to action seemed to evoke understanding and compassion.
That is unique, and we need more of that style. I enjoyed hearing
that Vachel Lindsay was considered a kook — it gives the rest
of us kooks hope. Nice piece.
Anne Logue
Springfield
THERE’S SOMETHING IN THE AIR
I’m from Decatur, and people who are
from Springfield tend to make fun of the way A.E. Staley can cause
a stench around Decatur. People often refer to Decatur as
“Stanktown” or “Stinktown.” This does not
offend me, because the stench coming from A.E. Staley can be
pungent. I am sorry to say that Springfield is acquiring its own
stench.
While driving on I-55 to get to the
Lowe’s on the North End, I started smelling the stench of
sewage. I know there are a few places that handle sewage on the
North End and figured this was no big deal. I then started noticing
it in more places.
While taking Veterans Parkway to get to Peoria
Road, I could start smelling sewage after I passed Browning Road. I
didn’t smell it at the fair because of the many other odors
but noticed it again while driving back home.
We went to the Route 66 Drive-In on a recent
Saturday, and could smell that familiar sewage while sitting there.
I don’t like sitting through two movies and, when I breathe,
it smells like I’m always near a sewer or bathroom. Yes, the
stench was that noticeable.
I’ve heard a lot of people make fun of
Decatur and the Staley stench, but I’d much rather smell that
than a city sewer. Maybe I just haven’t lived in Springfield
long enough to get used to it?
Kyle D. Waddell
Springfield
This article appears in Aug 25-31, 2005.
