Letters on Syria bombing, lousy reporting, official language
Trump’s 180 on Syria is concerning
President Trump saw horrifying images of the effects of chemical warfare and jumped into action. Something needed to be done. Was this the right move? Possibly, but a lot will depend on what comes next.
So what’s really important is: Does our president know what he is doing?
I respect people who, after serious thought, can change their mind and evolve on any given subject. But when that change is a 180 in just a few hours, it suggests lack of true analysis and reflection.
It’s even more suspicious coming from a politician who benefits from that populist fervor that only a good show of strength can bring. Now what is really scary is trying to guess what other epiphany Trump may have, and if it will involve more military action.
I pray that things won’t escalate. I hope it is true that even the blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while, that this was the right decision and somehow brings us closer to peace.
As supportive as we all want to be, we need to be critical of our government. Our president says he wants to be “unpredictable.” But there is a big difference between a surprise attack and a sudden, careless decision. There is a big difference between unpredictable and deranged.
Nano Salgado, Wichita
New sheriff
For the past five years, Barack Obama’s red line in Syria has been smeared into a yellow streak. Issuing an ultimatum against chemical weapons was commendable. Backing down and wagging a finger while Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian President Bashar Assad laughed at our bluster lowered Obama to Jimmy Carter’s level.
But now there’s a new sheriff in town. Pacifism in the face of atrocity leads to Armageddon. Resolve, decisiveness and Tomahawk cruise missiles send a blunt message. Well done.
Michael Mackay, Mulvane
Don’t dumb down
An recent Opinion Line comment claimed that it is time to make English the official language of the United States. That would be another meaningless and mean-spirited law with negative unintended consequences, including the further dumbing-down of our citizenry.
Several of the 6,000 or so languages of the world are spoken here, along with English, which is the practical default choice for anyone planning to stay here in the long term. The founders at one point actually considered making German the official language before wisely ruling not to do so. They protected our individual means of expression through the First Amendment, “gott sei Dank.”
Tina Bennett-Kastor, Wichita
Lousy reporting
I am in complete agreement with columnist Leonard Pitts’ view that the news media did a “lousy job” in reporting the 2016 election (April 3 Opinion). As a retired journalist, I found the coverage last year to be disappointing, at best.
Pitts noted the journalists’ challenge of “handling” an unconventional candidate like Donald Trump. However, covering the campaigns of unconventional, as well as conventional, candidates for public office would be much less challenging (and more beneficial to voters) if journalists would simply focus more on the issues that truly impact the electorate and less on plotting “gotcha” responses and fomenting a poll-driven horse race.
I watched every 2016 presidential debate and was particularly frustrated as the moderators, all supposedly journalists, held back from seeking details in how the candidates would resolve today’s problems. How can good jobs be created? What would a new, or improved, health care plan include? What are the options to achieve stability in the Mideast, or the Korean peninsula? Just how do you build a border wall and have another country pay for it? These and other questions were never really answered.
I understand wanting to drum up controversy. It sells publications and lures viewers, boosting revenues. But the public would be better served if members of the media pursued more facts and specifics on the issues and less interpretation of the candidates’ behavior and standings in the polls.
David Jensen, Wichita
Letters to the Editor
Include your full name, home address and phone number for verification purposes. All letters are edited for clarity and length; 200 words or fewer are best. Letters may be published in any format and become the property of The Eagle.
Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Wichita Eagle, 825 E. Douglas, Wichita, KS 67202
E-mail: letters@wichitaeagle.com
Fax: 316-269-6799
For more information, contact
Phillip Brownlee at 316-268-6262, pbrownlee@wichitaeagle.com.
This story was originally published April 11, 2017 at 5:03 AM with the headline "Letters on Syria bombing, lousy reporting, official language."