Some have tried to change MOSA

The May 31 editorial and one of the letters beg response: First, to suggest that banning burn barrels "might save taxpayers $140,000 or more a year" is ludicrous (it would, however, serve to create "criminals" overnight).

Second, "an increase in recycling" as an explanation for our shortfall is statistically unsupportable (but it makes for a nice emotional argument). In my opinion, less construction waste and flow-control issues are our "problem."

Third, the utopian argument that "there should be no such thing as garbage" is (pardon the pun) "rubbish." I’d suggest the writer rejoin the real world.

Fourth, to imply that "getting out" of MOSA and returning solid-waste responsibility to county government would be more cost efficient is humorous (please name me one government program that is not saddled with bureaucracy and inefficiency at best and fraud at worst).

Fifth, to even mention siting a landfill in this county is hilarious. Considering our recent history with wind power and biomass, I must conclude that we are suffering from a terminal case of NIMBY.

Finally, a few facts are pertinent to the economic impact on the county. We (the MOSA Board of Directors _ of which I am one from Otsego County) have the discretion to adjust any penalties resultant from not meeting GAT "¦ to discuss money after four months into this year is alarmist at best. In fact, we (the Otsego County directors and one other director) have attempted to pass resolutions at the last three board meetings that would have disbursed cash payments to the counties and municipalities for the purpose of encouraging recycling. We were defeated in each vote. Referring to MOSA as a "mistake" or a "monster," in my opinion, serves no useful purpose other than to fan the flames of controversy on a difficult issue.

Dave Parker
Worcester

We’ve repeatedly heard "We are fighting terrorists in Iraq so that we will not have to face them in the streets of our own cities." Richard Clarke, author of "Against All Enemies," describes this as Bush’s-puppy-dog-following-us-home theory of terrorism.

Career counterterrorism expert Clarke served four presidents and established a record for continuous service in national security policy positions. His career began as an analyst on nuclear weapons under Reagan. Clarke was the nation’s crisis manager in Bush’s White House situation room on 9/11.

We are expected to believe that terrorists have chosen to adhere to a rule of only one slaughter ground at a time. Nothing that is happening in Iraq prevents terrorists from attacking us on American soil. The evidence is that our occupation of Iraq motivates people throughout the Arab world to become terrorists.

British scientists estimate that 650,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the occupation of Iraq began. Those killed have relatives and fellow tribal clan members who have pledged revenge on America, no matter how long it takes.

Clarke insists that by investing our resources on the occupation of Iraq, we have ignored the more urgent task of guarding our homeland against terrorism and missed an opportunity to systematically dismantle al-Qaida all over the world.

The invasion of Iraq diverted efforts to destroy al-Qaida and provided the movement with the best recruiting tool possible. Attacks on our soil are likely no matter what happens in Iraq, because of what Bush has already done. Whatever course we choose in Iraq will not make any difference.

When the next attack is made on America, you can depend on Bush to blame his successor, by claiming that if enough troops were left in Iraq the attack wouldn’t have happened.

Jim O'Leary
Delhi

As the 2008 presidential season heats up and the buzz comes and goes for each of the many prospective candidates, I find myself listening for only one thing: What is your position on the war? For me, the only important consideration is who will get us out of Iraq the fastest and with the least cost in American lives.

The war is the single biggest mistake in American foreign policy that I am personally aware of. George Bush has already gone down, in my view, as the single worst president in our nation’s history. His decision to saddle us with Iraq, a country that was not causing us any significant problems, is an error of monumental proportions.

So how a prospective candidate addresses the issue of the Iraq war is paramount. Does a candidate have the guts and the honesty to admit we made a catastrophic mistake and end the war, or does the candidate babble on about the complexity of the region and our standing in the world and how we have to leave with our honor intact _ which is to say, not leave at all.

When you make a mistake of cosmic proportions, or any mistake for that matter, it seems to me that the most honorable way out would be to admit the mistake and stop doing what you are doing. We shouldn’t have invaded Iraq, we shouldn’t be in Iraq, so we should leave Iraq. How hard is that? Do these prospective candidates have any brains at all?

Unless a candidate can say that the Iraq war was a mistake and we’re out of there, that candidate is selling us a bill of goods and doesn’t deserve our vote.

Peter Johngren
Hartwick

Hearing that Miss USA got booed the other day in Mexico at the Miss Universe pageant reminded me of a recent experience.

Our first night in Vienna some weeks back, we came out of our hotel, still a bit jet-lagged, to be greeted by an anti-Bush demonstration.

The crowd even chanted its slogans in English _ apparently they believed our president can speak that language, huh?

Once again we were struck by the fact that the whole world despises the Bush administration and what it has done to America.

Wherever you go, it’s the same thing. The USA doesn’t have a friend anywhere anymore.

Are they all wrong? I don’t think so.

James E. Devlin
Oneonta