I have always looked forward to your paper every Wednesday. I can let a lot slide understanding the type of paper you publish and the demo you attract. Unfortunately, I've recognized over the past years that your slant toward PC and liberalism has become too much for me to accept anymore.
For me and a number of close friends and associates, the straw that broke the camel's back was the article written by Andisheh Nouraee badmouthing and misrepresenting the true reason for the Rally for America March 15 (Scene & Herd, "Pardon my French," March 19). I was also disappointed by the article by John Sugg (Fishwrapper, "God won't be on our side," March 19). I enjoyed yours and there was plenty to agree with, however, your slant is obvious (News & Views, "How to lose a war," March 19); I find this all disturbing.
I believe in freedom of speech and all that's stated in our Constitution, but too many people that are lucky they can speak freely, and the media are taking this all too far and covering the "anti and/or against" position to an extreme. There is a small minority receiving the majority of publicity. Your paper, no matter what demo you cater to should be spreading confidence to the families of our brave men and women protecting your freedom to do what you do. We should be better Americans and should be behind our troops and support them along with our president at this time more than ever.
You have lost me, and a good number of readers from this past issue ("Mum's the word," March 19).
Thank you for your time and God bless our FREE America.
-- Kevin Holloway, Marietta
John Sugg: I just read your article titled "God won't be on our side" (Fishwrapper, March 19). It's refreshing to FINALLY read some intelligent journalism. Keep your voice heard!
-- Brooke Johnston, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
(In response to Fishwrapper, "God won't be on our side," March 19): Now that you've seen the Iraqis lie to the world on television, saying that we didn't have control of the port city of Umm Qasr (which we've seen video that we do), now that you've seen little loss as to "when Americans start coming home in body bags," now that you've seen the Iraqi people thankful and shaking hands with American soldiers, will you print an appropriate follow-up to this story of yours -- oops, guess I was wrong?
And when or if weapons of mass destruction are recovered in Iraq, will you still maintain that "Saddam Hussein, loathsome as he is, poses no threat to America"?
You are among the same crowd that, had the president not waged war on all terrorists, Saddam included, and America was again attacked, you'd be criticizing the fact that he wasn't more aggressive.
Pull your pants up son, your ignorance is showing.
-- Lyne Perdue, Acworth
(In response to Fishwrapper, "God won't be on our side," March 19): God bless you John! I agree with you completely. I wish there were more people like you here in Minnesota. Right now, I am guessing about 75 percent of the people who I work with are pro-Bush, pro-war. It makes me sick, I dread coming into work and listening to all the propaganda that they continue to throw around, much of it coming from the White House and the mainstream media. Keep up the good fight. We must not give in to those who wish to see an American empire rule the earth.
-- Brian Burmeister, Jeffers, Minn.
Whether or not God is on America's side, the U.N. has nothing to do with it outside of any contracts or oaths that America has foolishly sworn that are binding on the country (Fishwrapper, "God won't be on our side," March 19). The concept of international law is predicated on the notion of international centralism or international socialism and, therefore, it is inherently antithetical to any competent notion of orthodox Christianity. The only "international law" that has any relevance to Christianity is God's law in that it is binding on all people, but the Bible doesn't provide us with an international centralist model for adjudicating any of it.
-- Tim Bloedow, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
In reference to your anti-American hatchet piece ... ("Mum's the word," March 19):
"Big dailies like the AJC and TV networks like CNN should inform citizens rather than pander to them; they should challenge authorities rather than act as bullhorns for the White House. That, at least, is what our Founding Fathers intended."
So you feel acting as a bullhorn for the American Bashing Democratic rag of Manchester Times/Britain, The Independent/ Britain, The Observer/Britain is the way? Your hypocrisy is stupendous.
"After the loss of 1.5 million barrels per day of Venezuelan production in December the oil price rocketed, and the scarcity of reserves threatened to do permanent damage to the U.S. oil refinery and transport infrastructure. To keep the pipelines flowing, President Bush stopped adding to the 700 million barrel strategic reserve. But ultimately oil giants such as Chevron, Exxon, BP and Shell saved the day by doubling imports from Iraq from 0.5 million barrels in November to over 1 million barrels per day. Essentially, U.S. importers diverted 0.5 million barrels of Iraqi oil per day heading for Europe and Asia to save the American oil infrastructure."
This is called energy management, you dip, something the prior administration could have taken a lesson from. Again your point is so marred in your biased partisanship that you fail to stress the point ... He managed the problem from the oil shortage.
"The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against U.N. Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favor of war against Iraq."
As France did in opposition to the war, their tricks were just as dirty and underhanded. The difference is, we have anti-American puppets and rags like this one stressing everything we do. Most people (Democratic hypocrites) do not want the real fact that France has more economic reasons for opposing the war than America has for beginning the war. Where were you when Clinton "liberated" Kosovo?
In closing I would like to say, that this was the first time I've visited your website/magazine. I was amazed that in a time of war you would lead with such a hatchet piece on America. I will wait to see if you have the balls to post my opinion as well. In its absence, I will never darken your door again, and nor will my employees, my friends and my family.
-- Aubrey Clark, Atlanta
I get so sick and tired of all the whining and complaining which passes for news out of your biased left-wing rag of a paper. Don't you realize what this war's all about? Don't you care about the brutality of Saddam Hussein and all the atrocities he has committed against his own people the past 20 years of his regime? Yet you keep bashing Bush, when he's trying to make a right out of a wrong.
Why don't you people and human rights activists get on your high horse and complain about the crimes against humanity committed in the Arab world? I really think you should all buy a ticket and go spend some time in a hell-hole country like Iraq and watch Saddam's goons and his own sons throw innocent people into plastic shredding machines, or pull women and screaming children out of their homes and toss them in front of the battle as human shields, or how the Iraqis dress as American soldiers and kill their fellow countrymen who surrender to them. After seeing all this, then come back and insult our wonderful president. I dare you, cowards!
-- Carol Richane, Kennesaw
I enjoyed reading your article titled "No monopoly on patriotism" (Fishwrapper, March 26) and share some of your views. I do believe that the news has painted all anti-war protesters as anti-American, which is not remotely true. But, I believe when protesters demonstrate with signs which state, "We support our troops when they shoot their officers" it's very disturbing and very anti-American. Your article also states that only Britain has backed up their words with soldiers, which is not true. Australia has also sent troops. I believe you're right about the very real possibility of a "throwaway gun" being planted if we do not find any chemical weapons. Also, don't be surprised when the troops find plenty of military arms with "Made in France" or "Made in Russia" stamped on them. Our government is not the only one playing dirty.
-- Ryan Rager, Douglasville
John Sugg: I am writing to you today from Toronto, Ontario, Canada, home of the Peaceniks, former allies, and overall useless country who is merely a mild irritant to the Bush administration.
Let me remove my tongue from my cheek before I begin.
I just wanted to thank you for writing this piece titled "No monopoly on patriotism" (Fishwrapper, March 26). I realize that there are many, many Americans who are opposed to the un-elected president and this war in Iraq and I would like to thank you for speaking out.
I am not an American citizen, but I am a concerned member of the human race who does not want to see the earth plundered, divided and destroyed by people such as George Bush and Dick Cheney.
Please keep the heat on these people and hopefully more Americans will discover news sources that report the truth, and not the lies and deception propagated from the desks of CNN.
-- David St-Maurice, Toronto
As an anti-war protester, I wholeheartedly support our brave men and women who volunteer to serve in the military. They enlist agreeing to defend the country from attack. However, I do not support the current administration's decision to place these honorable youths in harm's way in order to attack another country first and without provocation (apparently to increase our country's military power and establish control over oil and water resources in Southwest Asia).
If this war were truly about protecting America from external threats, rooting out potential ties to al-Qaeda, liberating an oppressed people from a dictatorial regime, or enforcing U.N. sanctions, we would more likely be at war with North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China or Israel. We have bigger threats to Americans' well-being here at home (lack of health care and the shaky economy, for instance) than Saddam Hussein.
Not only are our troops in danger abroad, but as citizens, we are also now more vulnerable than ever to terrorist threats. This is due in part to our reckless foreign policy, which is based on imperialism and corporate greed. Therefore, it is not only my right, but indeed my duty, to continue to speak out against these injustices at every opportunity.
--Tony Hammock, Atlanta
John Sugg: I just read your article "No Monopoly on Patriotism" (Fishwrapper, March 26) and loved it. I am a 23-year-old liberal female that works in a predominantly conservative-male environment. I am anti-war (but NOT anti-American) and I am so tired of people being put into only two camps when it comes to this issue. You're either pro-Bush and think that this war is what we need to be doing and that it's just so great, or you're anti-war which also means you're anti-American and against the troops.
Creative Loafing is one of the few places I find comfort in knowing that I am not alone in my opinion.
At this point, I find Bush more of a threat to our nation than Saddam Hussein. It scares me more and more each day the number of the people I talk to that are brainwashed into his way of thinking. Hopefully this will all be over soon ... in the meantime, I'll have to keep reading your columns.
-- D'Arcy Astridge, Charlotte, N.C.
"I believe people who have a mental history should not be able to purchase a…
The French advisory is intended for citizens of France, whose primary experience with a large…
The Cheetah (and Pink Pony and Gold Club back in the day ), together with…
@ Socialized risk, privatized gains "Friends in Cobb have told me that the stadium site…
Can someone, anyone, please point me to where by act of legislature Atlanta HAD to…