Columns

Letters to the Editor

STRANGER: I read Josh Feit's article on the politics surrounding the Gary Zarker reconfirmation vote with great interest ["Inept Nicastro," March 13]. The column made some pretty remarkable claims about me, especially that I offered to vote for Zarker in exchange for the mayor's political support. Unfortunately, Feit was misled by his sources in the mayor's office.

I never offered such a trade, and would never make a self-serving political deal in the context of a substantive issue so important to the city. Not only have I never asked for the mayor's support for my reelection, I do not want it. I disagree with his style, bullying tactics, and personnel choices.

The mayor's office is actively opposing my reelection in any way, shape, and form it can, and has been doing so for months. This bizarre accusation is a part of that campaign.

Nonetheless, I have learned from this episode, and I am making a change in policy: From this day forward, when I meet with anyone from the mayor's office, I will invite Josh Feit and other members of the press to sit in. I am certain that if the mayor's office is interested in clean, open, honest government, it will have no problem with this.

In closing, I would also like to extend this invitation to the people I am honored to serve. Please contact my office and we will add you to the invitation list.

Judy Nicastro

Seattle City Council Member

STRANGER: I found Dan Savage's article ["Against the War--for Now," March 13] to be interesting mainly because of his unique ability to express his viewpoint while simultaneously eschewing both pro- and antiwar mainstreams.

However, some of his supporting statements seemed rash. For example, using Southeast Asia to explain that U.S. bombing doesn't necessarily create future terrorism only works to a point. What about the murderous regime in Cambodia following the devastating secret and illegal bombing there by Nixon and Kissinger's administration? Perhaps Pol Pot didn't launch attacks on U.S. territory, but neither has Saddam Hussein. In either case, the evidence would suggest that more harm than good comes out of most Operations Bomb the Bejesus out of the Cocksuckers.

Furthermore, Savage's statement that "Normandy wasn't Berlin" asks us to put aside the fact that Saddam isn't Osama bin Laden in order to start the rollback of Mideast despotism and religious fanaticism somewhere--although Iraq's position as a secular state shows that the two evils he mentions aren't always linked. At least Savage is consistent in his vilification of Mideast rulers-by-decree, including the Saudi royal family, unlike the Bush administration.

Moreover, although Savage is right that lefties might also show their disdain for Saddam's own murderous tendencies in Iraq, do these tendencies not pale in comparison with the death and disease our lack of compassion since the Gulf War has brought to a much larger percentage of the population?

Ron, via e-mail

STRANGER: First of all, Dan, let go of any lingering identification you may once have had with the left. You're a neoconservative, front and center, not a lefty (commie-pinko-faggot or any other variety). Embrace it, be proud of it, but don't kid yourself any longer.

Though I agree that "the Middle East is a mess," and that "the West made it [so]," Dan loses me when he states that "the West is going to have to clean it up." What makes him think that we'll get it right this time? Does he really think that when the U.S. invades the region, its motives will be altruistic? Dan gives far too much credit to Western political leaders and their supposed good intentions.

Violence only solves things in the short term, which is no real solution at all. Sure, Allied forces defeated Hitler, but they certainly didn't put an end to anti-Semitism, Balkan hostilities, or a host of other global issues that continue to bedevil us. What if the half-million U.S. troops currently massed on the borders of Iraq were armed with nothing but food, medicine, and blankets? Wouldn't an invasion of aid and solidarity topple Saddam far more effectively in the long run, while winning the friendship of the Iraqi people in the bargain?

There's only one reason to oppose the invasion of Iraq, Dan. Killing people is wrong. Killing people to make them stop killing people just doesn't make sense, logically OR morally. It's not that the left's sympathy is selective--rather, we feel an obligation to take responsibility for the things our government does in our name and with our tax dollars. The left has opposed Western-imposed sanctions on Iraq for years, sanctions that have surely killed as many innocent Iraqis as Saddam's torture chambers.

Jess Grant, via e-mail

DAN SAVAGE: Regarding "Against the War--for Now": You wrote, "We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than we dropped on Europe during World War II. Where are all the Vietnamese terrorists?"

The Vietnamese won. They won, they won, they won, they won, they won.

George Oliver, via e-mail

STRANGER: Great issue this week. I'm enjoying The Stranger now more than I have in years. Great cover (they usually are), great articles--especially Amy Jenniges' well-placed criticism. But there's just one thing: Dan Savage, did you miss the Neal Pollack issue? SHUT UP!!!

Wayne Proctor, via e-mail