Unfettered Letters

Practically writes itself

We have the Paul Morrison sex scandal, Mayor Funkhouser’s feuds with almost everyone in city government and Clay Chastain’s obsession with mass transit.

We have the baseball/steroid revelations and stand-up “debates” by political comedians from both sides of the aisle who aspire to be our next leader.

And let’s not overlook the latest antics of our commander in chief and his administration.

The writers union ought to be worried. They can’t write stuff this good!

Tom Bryant
Olathe

News is disturbing

There are days when the state of the world is greatly disturbing to me. As I write this, it is one of those days.

We were led into a war that I still don’t know the real reason for. Who is benefiting? Iraq is more dangerous than ever before, and our sons and daughters are dying by the hundreds.

We elect our leaders by voting for whoever can come up with the best smear campaign. How sad.

Recently a precious baby girl’s life was ended, allegedly by the abusive hand of a Kansas City police officer, an authority figure whom both of the child’s parents had trusted to care for her.

If all of this gets you down, cheer up. Jared Allen of the Chiefs, who in recent months has received two DUIs, threw a party Sunday at the Peanut, a bar in Shawnee, after the game. I wonder whether he invited any MADD members.

Gena L. Kellae
Raytown

The Foley fumble

I would hope the Democrats would not be like the Chiefs. Why? It’s this incident with Mark Foley. The Democrats are scoring a lot of points on it. But what is it really? It’s a fumble.

In football, a fumble allows your team to grab the ball and switch to offense. You might even score a touchdown. But it’s rare a fumble alone will win a game, and one fumble definitely not win you the playoffs. To win, you must have a powerful offense and score points yourself.

So the Democrats must set forth policies and programs on their own in order to win elections, not just wait for another Republican fumble because probably they will soon have a fumble of their own. Then it’s back to being on defense full time.

Brad Hansen
Overland Park

Ports deal

If you think all black people are criminals and can't be trusted, you are A) brilliant, B) a bigot.

If you think all Arabs are criminals and can't be trusted, you are A) brilliant, B) a bigot.

The ports deal appears to be a good one involving allies of the United States. If Congress was surprised by it, it's because it didn't do its job. It was announced last October and investigated under rules set by Congress to ensure confidentiality.

There were 64 similar investigations conducted last year to approve foreign nations investing in the U.S. economy. Every investigative agency declared this a good deal with good people.

But here come the bigots who claim Arabs are criminals and can't be trusted. We are trying to strengthen ties with the Arab world. Economic ties stop wars. Bigots see only that Arab equals bad guy. That view is ignorant and bigoted.

George Thomas
Stanley

After reading columns from E. Thomas McClanahan (2/26) and Mary Sanchez (2/28) supporting the Dubai Ports World deal, I wonder whether it is not time for a terrorism handbook.

Since 9/11, the Republican Party and conservative columnists have been preaching to us to be very, very afraid. There is no sacrifice too big in fighting terrorism.

We have been told we are soft on terrorism if we don't want our phones tapped and don't support our rights being taken away through the Patriot Act. But we are xenophobic isolationists if we think turning our ports over to the same people who helped the 9/11 terrorists is bad for our country.

I thank it's time for a handbook so we will all know when we are good Americans

Greg King
Kansas City

Ports deal

Let us not distort the issue concerning the foreign control of American ports. The security of our ports has long been recognized as fundamental to our security but has been consistently neglected.

There is no room to doubt that after 9/11, no foreign government or agency or entity should ever be permitted to operate any part of any American port. That is a fundamental requirement of our national security.

Obviously we should not discriminate against Arabs. There are terrorists in many areas of the world. Foreign companies' operation of all U.S. ports should be re-examined to determine whether those companies are in practical fact extensions of hostile interests or foreign governments.

This should have been done long ago for all U.S. ports.

Politics should never be permitted to trump our national security interests.

Lloyd Ryan
Karin Ryan
Merriam

Ports deal

I don't quite get it. Why can't we manage our own ports? A country that can put a man on the moon does not have the ability to manage its own ports?

There is evidently big money in port management. The Dubai Ports World deal was worth $7 billion. Why don't we have some courses at a few large universities on port management?

Why ask for security problems when the answer could be right here in our own back yard?

Carl Galler
Leawood

Look at ports deal

I think it would be beneficial if everyone, The Star included, would more precisely comment on the proposed sale of the leases at six U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World.

“More review needed” (2/23 editorial) states that President Bush wants to approve a deal “that would leave a state-owned company in a tiny Persian Gulf emirate running six large U.S. seaports.”

Does the editorial writer not know that the Port of New York/New Jersey is “run” by the Port Authority — not by any terminal lessee?

Dubai Ports World will take over the leases of some terminals at the Port of New York/New Jersey. It will not “run” this port, nor the Port of Baltimore, nor the Port of Philadelphia, etc. There are several terminals in most large ports. Dubai Ports World will take its place alongside other lessees, all under the control of the port authorities (as well as the security control of the U.S. Coast Guard and Homeland Security Department).

Why not get the facts straight and do a real public service? One can see by the comments in Voices that this misconception is shared by some Star readers.

James A. Burr
Overland Park

Are we, the United States of America, not smart enough and big enough to operate, maintain, manage and protect our own ports?

This great nation must be the laughingstock of the Arab world. That is an embarrassment.

I suggest that we, the U.S. of A, at once cancel all agreements of any sort regarding our ports and return any monies paid up front by others for use, access, operation, etc.

We should then take charge and put our citizens to doing the work at all levels.

I have voted Republican in every election starting in the first election in the 1940s. But if this administration proceeds with this mess, it may very well destroy the party — just what the opposition at home and abroad wants.

John P. Thiessen
Leawood

It’s business

The current hubbub over the Dubai Ports World acquisition of British-owned Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. is a lot of empty cargo.

As a frequent traveler to Dubai as a marketing consultant, I am very aware of the general management, organizational and operational philosophies of major companies in the United Arab Emirates.

The vast majority companies I worked with there were managed by American and British senior executives, closely followed by executives from Western Europe, Australia and South Africa. In fact, we used to joke about the hierarchy of management nationality in the largest and most successful companies. It was often a point of pride for the Emirati business houses to boast about their American or British chief executives.

I would be very surprised if the management teams at any of these ports were led by an Emirati national. There might not even be major changes from existing management teams.

If you’re a successful Arab company (like Dubai Ports) from a supportive Arab country (like the U.A.E.), the United States is not open for business.

That’s not the message we want to send to the Arab world’s business community.

Richard F. Thomas Jr.
Kansas City

Ports deal

I am appalled, worried and severely disappointed in our government’s “blessing” on the sale of the British firm that manages six of our major ports to Dubai Ports World. What are we thinking? According to your front-page (2/21), “lawmakers of both (U.S. political) parties say they are worried about terrorist infiltration.” Duh! Who wouldn’t be?

What kind of security checks will put in place to make certain that once again Americans will not welcome terrorists into our country with open arms and later find them attacking our citizens in the worst possible way?

Wake up, Washington, before it is too late. I am beginning to think that no one in the government should be re-elected. We need to start over from the top down.

Kay Salter
Prairie Village

Since 9-11, we, as citizens of the United States, have had to go through a lot of changes in how we travel, renew documents, i.e. drivers licences, and other things in the name of protecting ourselves. What I don’t understand is why the man who tells us to be aware of things, to keep us safe, would let a foreign, state-owned company control our ports. It is like hiring the fox to protect the hen house.

Allen Tucker
Riverside

Cheney hunting accident

Six hunters are hunting quail on a hedge row. I am in the middle of three on the right side.

A covey gets up. I have my gun up ready to shoot as they break cover.

Suddenly the man on my left jumps in front of my gun just as birds break cover in front of me. Did I pull the trigger? No. I was lucky and had good reflexes.

That was 40 years ago. I’m not sure I could do that today.

I think many, many hunters have a similar story to tell.

What happened to Dick Cheney could have happened to me and the guy who jumped in front of my gun. It would have been an accident then and is today.

Unfortunate, of course. Regrettable, of course. But an accident. Can the media knock it off already?

Bob Lager
Fairway

The Star quotes Dick Cheney as saying, “I’m the guy who pulled the trigger” (2/16, A-1).

Is this the beginning of a trend? Might we expect Cheney to say, “Saddam did not have WMDs” or “Iraq had no nukes”?

Never mind — probably not.

Scott Gregory
Roeland Park

If Dick Cheney runs for president in 2008, I bet Dan Quayle won’t agree to be his running-mate.

Lorie Stewart
Kansas City

Press failures

Mike Hendricks made a significant point in his column “Hunting down truth in the field” (2/15, Metro). I think Hendricks’ point was to ridicule Vice President Dick Cheney and the Bush administration, but I am a hunter, and he is right on hunter safety. Mr. Cheney was wrong, period, end of story.

My point in writing, however, relates to Hendricks’ comment that many of his fellow reporters report their opinions as fact or just plain don’t know what they are talking about. You reckon?

Only when the public is aware of the truth of an incident — hunting safety in this case — do you realize that some “reporters of fact” are too often reporting opinion or fiction. We accept it because we don’t know better.

I believe in and will defend the First Amendment, but we must remember how easily the power of the press can be manipulated.

Michael A. West
Leawood

Cheney accident

First we read the administration’s denial that the shooting was Dick Cheney’s fault. Then Cheney acknowledges that he in fact was responsible. Why were they trying to cover up?

This is so typical: Blame the other person, agency, country to see how it plays out. Only then start the slow march to the truth.

Judy Beyer
Lee’s Summit

Wiretapping flap

To those who don’t have a problem with what may be illegal government eavesdropping without any system of checks and balances: Do you really believe that every future administration will share your sense of values and ethics?

Have you even considered the chances that an administration you don’t trust and believe to be a den of crooks, cheats and liars could come to power? An administration that had manipulated itself into a position of being “untouchable”? An administration so set on curtailing activities you had at one time taken for granted as your inalienable rights that they thought nothing of making up the rules as they went along in order to catch you in those activities?

Unauthorized eavesdropping may seem harmless to you. Personally, I don’t trust that our government will forever be one with my best interests or those of my children at heart.

The president vowed to uphold the Constitution of the United States. We need to hold him to that.

Mike Loman
Kansas City

Media arrogance

In recent days I have seen the culmination of a trend that has been building for several years. The press has now become more important than the news itself.

While I am not a reporter, I did take a class a long time ago on the subject and recall that the responsibility of the reporter is to provide the who, what, when, where and how of a story. Anything beyond that would be opinion and should be identified as such.

Since Vice President Dick Cheney was involved in a hunting accident, the story has revolved around how the press wasn’t called immediately. Let me take a moment to remind the press something they seem to have forgotten: They are not the single most important thing in the world. How incredibly arrogant.

A man was shot in a hunting accident. It is a real tragedy. The core of the story shouldn’t be the fact that the press wasn’t called either right before or immediately following the ambulance.

This just reinforces the ongoing separation between the press and what citizens actually want to know.

Blake Breeden
Overland Park

Questions for Bush

Administration officials recently fanned out across the media landscape and into our backyard in Manhattan, Kan., to tell us we should be thankful the president believes that he alone should determine which Americans need to be spied upon by their own government. While the academic legal community is virtually united in its belief that the Bush spying program is illegal and unconstitutional, political operatives for the White House hope to convince average Americans they should be glad.

But the president's extraordinary claim cries out for three questions we should demand to be answered:

-- Given that the FISA court set up to approve domestic wiretapping has denied a warrant only five times in its almost 30 years of existence, how can applying for one be considered an obstacle?

-- Since the NSA can spy on Americans for 72 hours before notifying the FISA court, how is the involvement of this court a problem?

-- Why give this or any future president such unchecked power when it doesn't appear necessary or effective? The FBI is on record as saying the leads it received from the NSA were almost all dead ends.

Alexis Stevens
Kansas City

Surveillance is worth it

In regard to government surveillance, Steven White (1/23, As I See It) raises concern over attorney-client privileged communications. I suggest he worry more about using the telephone, whether land line or cell phone, for privileged conversations (any competent hacker can listen in) than the government monitoring conversations for “key words” centering on potential terrorist affiliations.

Until there is some hard evidence that the government is actually using overheard information for anything other than catching terrorists, I would prefer continuing the efforts to keep us safe from attack.

Steve Bailey
Fairway

A matter of (dis)trust

The president is asking us to take his word that the government is spying only on terrorists. Yet it seems to me that he and the vice president have all but called this nation's war critics terrorists.

I can well imagine the administration spying on everyone from political opponents to war critics to outspoken members of the media. I can't imagine a judge approving any surveillance of such people.

This administration for years harbored someone who exposed a CIA agent. I don't think it is too much to ask that they now demonstrate that they are acting in good faith by retroactively getting approval - in accordance with the law of the land - for their spying.

Dan Carmack
Liberty, Mo.

A pox on leaks

Treacherous public servants, treasonous publishers and opportunistic writers are going to be the death of us all.

The government listening in on terrorists? How Republican — a Democrat would never do that. Only people who want to win the war on terror would do such an ugly thing. Such people value civil rights. Such people know civil rights have no value when we’re dead.

Watch for decreasing newspaper circulation, election losses and book advances that exceed sales. Those who leak/print government secrets for career/financial benefits will be obliterated by blogging. No matter how loudly they chant anti-Bush trash, this is already happening.

Patricia Gottardi
Overland Park

Roberts doesn’t get it

Sen. Pat Roberts ("Roberts irritated by accounts of snooping,” 1/7, A-4) does not understand the extent of the people’s outrage over the NSA spying scheme. He claims there is no problem with spying on Americans who may be involved in al-Qaida or groups that may have ties to al-Qaida. He’s upset that the story is now public.

How does he know who is being spied on? Who knows the extent of the spying? There is no paper trail. Reports suggest thousands of Americans have been spied on. What information do they have? There is no way for us to know. There is no oversight. The president is acting alone, contrary to the spirit and letter of the laws of our country.

If Roberts believes he is more secure in a dictatorship, perhaps he should resign.

Michael Henry
Kansas City

How much does privacy matter?

Does Mike Hendricks (“Americans’ privacy a casualty,” 01/11, Metro) realize why there has not been a repeat 9/11? Does he realize that the 9/11 terrorists lived, socialized and blended in with their American neighbors unchecked?

Would he be less free when and if another 9/11 occurs? Does he realize that if Bill Clinton had conducted just a little Patriot Act-like work we might have 3,000 Americans still alive? Or is his column just politics once again?

Tim Bower
Overland Park

I concur with Mike Hendricks’ column “Americans’ Privacy a Casualty.”

The president and his administration have taken upon themselves the right to violate the Constitution and our civil rights. I for one am outraged —and, more important, fearful — for our democracy and way of life.

I would hope that my fellow citizens are as outraged as I am and will be working to see this practice end.

Scott Laurent
Kansas City

No mere technicality

The president has admitted that he ordered government spying against American citizens without a warrant. He has done this even though it is extremely easy to get warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. From early on, we Libertarians were very unhappy over FISA court warrants because they were so easy to get. Probable cause, the standard set down in the Fourth Amendment, was not required; only a statement from a federal investigator that the information was needed in connection with a terror investigation.

Having said that, if such a simple method was available to get warrants, why not get them? It seems that a major goal of this administration is the establishment of an imperial presidency.

This is not a mere technicality. This is just one more big, red flag that tells us our basic freedoms are at stake.

Do we have a president or a king? Let’s get our congressmen off their backsides and stop this guy while we still can.

Michael Kerner
Third District Coordinator
Libertarian Party of Kansas
Lenexa

The real fault

In response to Lewis Diuguid’s column about KU’s Paul Mirecki (12/23, Opinion), Diuguid misses the point. It was not the conservatives or the religious right that brought down Mirecki.

Mirecki shot himself in his own foot with his e-mails. He violated his profession and was removed on the recommendation of his peers. He revealed that he was involved in bigotry.

Lee Orth
Greenwood

Justice for all

I hope Jack Abramoff gets his just deserts for buying congressional influence. But I hope even more that any and all members of Congress who are involved will be hung out to dry.

Unfortunately, I have a feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Bruce Rogers
Kansas City

Thoughts on thoughts on surveillance

I support Kathleen Parker’s column (“Privacy vs. Security,” 01/02, Opinion) regarding the necessity of tracking our enemies.

Only the obtuse would want to limit the government’s ability to spy on those whose intent is to destroy us.

It’s obvious that The New York Times and others, as well as certain politicians, have made mountains out of molehills with this civil-rights issue.

I do business internationally via fax, e-mail and telephone. If the NSA has spied on me, so what? It’s a legitimate business doing nothing unethical, illegal or subversive. Therefore, I have nothing to fear or hide.
If those opposed to the surveillance were to have their way, it would be much easier for terrorists to set off a major attack. Then, my rights will have been violated.

William A. Brown
Kansas City

Kathleen Parker’s column was very disturbing. Over the years, a million soldiers have died to ensure our “decency,” including the right to privacy. In the mid-1970s Congress established a secret court specifically to hear domestic spying requests from the intelligence community. This court was the direct result of the abuses by the Nixon White House, where our current vice president and secretary of defense cut their political teeth. Their excuse then was national security, and that we were at war.

Since the court’s inception, it has denied only a handful of requests. The law allows the intelligence community to spy on U.S. citizens for up to 3 days before having to show just cause to the court. If the law is flawed, the administration has an obligation ask the Supreme Court or Congress for redress.

By ignoring both, Bush has violated the very Constitution he swore to uphold.

Richard Bailey
Merriam

George Bush’s claims of a right to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant are essentially the same as King Charles I’s pronouncements to parliament in the 1600s that the king could do no wrong. Parliament disabused him of that notion by separating his head from his body.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled similarly in Ex parte Milligan, an 1866 case decided on the heels of the Civil War. The court found that the president could not justify setting aside the constitution or laws “based on the mandate of the President; because he is controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to execute, not to make, the laws.”

The Constitution forbids warrantless search. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 specifies that “no person” may set warrantless wiretaps and to do so is a felony.

The willful commissions of continuing felonies by George W. Bush fall under the high crimes and misdemeanors spoken of in the Constitution. The remedy is impeachment.

Robert Lewis
Independence

Eavesdropping is wrong

I applaud the recent commentary expressing concerns about eavesdropping on American people without warrants. The Bush administration apparently has decided it can do whatever it wants and not be subjected to any judicial review.

Of course, this is “deeply disturbing” (editorial, 12/20). Even more disturbing is the approval of these warrantless searches by Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, one of the few members of Congress briefed on the program.

If Roberts really believes these warrantless searchers are “lawful” and something a president should be entitled to in time of war, we in effect have no Fourth Amendment, and we no longer live in a country based on the rule of law.

Bob Yates
Warrensburg, Mo.

Senate Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas says President Bush’s spying program “is consistent with U.S. laws.”

This once again underscores that Kansas and Missouri are represented in the Senate by bubbleheads. What ever the Cheney/Bush administration says or does, those four (and unfortunately a lot of others) nod their heads in agreement.

The House impeached President Bill Clinton for having an affair with an intern. Now we have a situation where the president OKs spying on our citizens.

Jim Bison
Overland Park

War and responses

I was delighted to read columnist Rhonda Chriss Lokeman’s indictment (“Administration faces wall of resistance over torture issue,”11/13, Opinion) of the Bush administration’s policy on torture.

Lokeman cited the impressive list of former secretaries of State, national security advisers, UN ambassadors, senators and others — Democrats and Republicans alike — who signed a statement condemning the cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of prisoners under American control.

What she did not mention is that this effort on the part Partnership for a Secure America was organized by Jamie Metzl, a native Kansas Citian, who ran unsuccessfully for Congress last year and is now co-chairman of PSA.

It’s good to know that Jamie is still serving our community and our country in his new position. His star is still rising. Many of us are very proud supporters.

Kathleen Coenen
Olathe

It is somewhat understandable that it has taken a while for President Bush and Vice President Cheney to respond to the unconscionable attempts by leading Democrats to politicize the war on terrorism.

Bush and Cheney have been busy actually dealing with terrorism, and they likely couldn’t fathom that even Democrats’ propaganda could sink this low.

I’m convinced that this probably unprecedented ploy affects the morale of our brave military. It puts them in greater danger because it emboldens the enemy by, among other things, fraudulently swaying public opinion against the noble effort.

These Democrats know that President Bush was and is telling the truth about Iraq according to the best intelligence, and they have said the same things.

Honest disagreement is always welcome. But it is all but unthinkable that a major obstacle to President Bush’s visionary — and thus far largely successful — attempt to stop the spread of World War III now exists on the home front.

Mark S. Robertson
Independence

Truth about U.S. wars

For those Democrats and a biased media who blame President Bush for American military deaths in Iraq, let’s consider some facts.

President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, led us into World War I. Germany never attacked us directly, but we did lose lives due to a few American commercial ships sunk in the Atlantic Ocean. We suffered 116,000 American military deaths after entering the war.

President Franklin Roosevelt led us into World War II, but Germany never attacked us. We lost 405,000 military personnel during the war.

President Harry Truman started the Korean War, even though Korea never attacked us — and 37,000 American military personnel lost their lives.

President John Kennedy started the Vietnam War — and 58,000 Americans didn’t come home, even though North Vietnam never attacked us.

What has President Bush done since 9/11?

He liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people.

President Bush is doing a great job. You can’t support the troops without supporting the commander in chief.

Wilson Winch
Independence

Palatas' "Blame game"

Regarding “End the blame game by refusing to play” (10/8, Midwest Voices): Thank you, Vicki Palatas, for tackling one of our greatest problems. Wouldn’t it be great if this thinking would/could spread to all walks of life? Taking responsibility for our actions got lost along the way a long time ago and needs to be taught all over again.

M.N. Lowe
Overland Park

Vicki Palatas could have shortened her column considerably by simply stating, “George Bush bears no responsibility for anything that has happened during his presidency.”

Bush hasn’t contributed to global warming by his actions (or inactions). None of the problems with Katrina were his fault or FEMA’s but were the fault of Louisiana authorities or sniveling welfare socialists. And that reliable standby of the right: It was Bill Clinton who really caused everything that’s gone wrong during this presidency, including but not limited to global warming, 9/11, the war in Iraq, the budget deficit and now hurricanes.

Wake up, Vicki. Leaders lead. The best of them make mistakes. And the really good ones accept responsibility for their mistakes. There’s no danger that will happen with this administration, because those in the Bush crowd are masters of the blame game. It’s always someone else’s fault.

Bob Ferguson
Kansas City, Kan.

Reading Vicki Palatas’ column, I was struck by how she exhorted us to not play “the blame game” and then proceeded to play a stealth version of it herself.

Perhaps if she would open her mind to views other than what she gets from the right-wing talk shows, it would make for more interesting reading. As it was, it was just the same old, tired excuses that the current administration is not to blame for anything that has happened since it came into power, especially the Katrina mess.

It brought to mind something I heard Jon Stewart (“The Daily Show”) say: “When people don’t want to play the blame game, they’re to blame.” There is much responsibility on both sides for the Katrina meltdown, but to hold the current administration essentially guiltless is laughable.

John Southard
Shawnee

DeLay, grand juries

In her letter of Oct. 4, Ashley Mersman — citing Tom DeLay’s complaint of partisan politics as the basis for his recent indictments — writes that “DeLay and his staff need a little education into the judicial system.” Perhaps it is Ms. Mersman who needs the education.

Nationally, the number of true bills issued by grand juries runs at more than 99 percent of those requested. Prosecutors know that almost none of the rights of the accused, otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution, are available in grand jury hearings. The rules are such that a prosecutor can get a turnip indicted if he wants to badly enough.

As a protection against being brought to trial on trumped-up charges, grand juries offer about as much protection as a Star Chamber (a special Royal Court in 14th century England), which, by the way, is the idea on which they are based.

James W. Henry
Attorney at law
Blue Springs

Tom DeLay is only the latest in a long line of those who got too big for their britches and proved that “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The much-maligned Clinton administration was kept in check by a vigilant Republican Congress and was relatively free of corruption. It was, by any objective measure, a conservative administration that did not break new ground and controlled government spending from agriculture to welfare.

A system of checks and balances is essential for a democracy to operate effectively. When one party controls all branches of government, failure is a certainty.

Kenneth Lee
Raytown

Ali Kemp case

I think that too much coverage is being devoted to Ali Kemp’s killer. I refuse to mention his name and give him more attention. The man I want to honor is Ali’s father. As a father myself, I watched with tears in my eyes as he had to recount the day that he lost his daughter.

Mr. Kemp, it is clear by your composure on the stand that you loved your daughter very much as you struggle to do the hardest thing you have ever done in your life. In testifying against her killer, you honor her memory.

My family will continue to pray for yours, and I hope that Ali’s killer suffers punishment that is swift, certain and severe. It is my hope that he will fade away into obscurity and that all will remain is the memory of your daughter and the lives that she touched.

You have my respect, sir.

Chris Depue
Lee’s Summit

Darned if you do…

What do you Bush bashers want? First the president is aloof and uncaring because he flies over the Katrina-damaged area. Now he’s wasting money by flying to the hurricane-ravaged area. Just admit it: He can do nothing right in your eyes. That is really immature behavior.

Charlotte K. Planer
Blue Springs