Classifieds Business Directory Jobs Real Estate Autos Legal Notices ePubs Subscribe Archives
Today is October 13, 2015
home news sports feature opinionfyi society obits multimedia

Front Page » March 18, 2003 » Opinion » Letter to the Editor: Resents implications
Published 4,592 days ago

Letter to the Editor: Resents implications

Print PageEmail PageShareGet Reprints

East Carbon


I am replying to a letter by Ned Scarlet (Sun Advocate , March 4) to tell him I resent being called a hippie and a traitor.

I will be 73 years old on May 7. I have worked since I was 11 years old, except for an eight month vacation that President Eisenhower gave me during his 1958 recession. At the time I was married and had two sons and would have lost everything I own if my mother hadn't helped me out. I retired on President's Day 1992 after working 36 years for the Rio Grande Railroad as a switchman, brakeman and conductor in Helper.

If we want to get rid of terrorists and traitors I suggest we start with our present administration. If it is not traitorous to wrap our flag around a 55 gallon oil drum and it is not terrorist to instigate a war that will kill thousands of innocent men, women and children (at the behest of the oil companies) then I would like to know what is.

I also consider it traitorous to give ownership of the United States of America and its armed forces to the American oil companies and British Petroleum. If that is not traitorous, I would like them to tell me what is. I subscribe to the Sun Advocate and the Salt Lake Tribune and a great preponderance of the items I have read opposing the oil company's war with Iraq were written by veterans of World War II. Is Mr. Scarlet also accusing them of being traitors?

I agree with him that 9-11 was a heinous act. President Bush, as hard as he has tried, has not uncovered any evidence that Saddam was involved in 9-11. He states that terrorists reside in Iraq but weren't the group that actually occupied and piloted the planes that caused 9-11 residing in the United States.

Bush has accused Saddam of lying because he is destroying missiles he denied owning. But isn't Bush also being dishonest not telling Saddam that he is committed to destroy him whether he disarms or not?

Print PageEmail PageShareGet Reprints

Top of Page

March 18, 2003
Recent Opinion
Quick Links
Subscribe via RSS
Related Articles  
Related Stories

Best viewed with Firefox
Get Firefox

© Sun Advocate, 2000-2013. All rights reserved. All material found on this website, unless otherwise specified, is copyright and may not be reproduced without the explicit written permission from the publisher of the Sun Advocate.
Legal Notices & Terms of Use    Privacy Policy    Advertising Info    FAQ    Contact Us
  RSS Feeds    News on Your Site    Staff Information    Submitting Content    About Us