To the Editors.

Excellent work

Congratulations to the editors for providing (in the September 28 issue) the best articles I have read since the September 11 attack. I praise the descriptive talents of Staten Islander Patrick Jordan ("WTC") and Manhattanite Grant Gallicho ("How It Felt"). Robert White's column ("What Kind of 'War'?") is the best among excellent pieces. Thanks for the insights.

JOE MCMAHON
Seaford, N.Y.

Cancel my subscription

Your September 28 issue is an outrage. To use the opportunity of the tragic events of September 11 as an excuse to attack the Bush administration goes way beyond anything I thought even you would stoop to.

Page 4: In the editorial, "September 11, 2001," you write: "Bush's unsteady performance in the aftermath of the bombings has done little to create greater confidence in his judgment and leadership." Either you guys live on a distant planet or in the bowels of the New York Times. Out here in the USA, citizens of all colors, faiths, and political persuasions are in strong support of the president's actions and speeches.

Page 4: "Certainly this administration's boastful unilateralism and naive isolationism now stand exposed as folly." Except for a few ultra-left-wing magazines, these charges have been pretty well disposed of. Even mainstream journalists like Georgie Ann Geyer have praised this administration for withdrawing from the Durban conference because it had been hijacked by Middle Eastern extremists.

Page 7: William Pfaff's column was headed "Beware the Jackals," and the jackals turn out to be our own military planners, not the bastards who killed five thousand innocent people. His final paragraph, intimating that we somehow deserved this tragedy, is unspeakably twisted and sick.

Page 8: Peter Steinfels writes, "Colin Powell and Dick Cheney, with their command of detail, do educate the public about complexity. The president is in charge of cheerleading, which he carries out unevenly." Does Peter have an entire edition of the New York Times in his mouth or only the editorial page?

I could go on with other examples, but why bother? If it was the intent of the terrorists to divide the American public and drive a wedge between the people and their leaders, then they scored a direct hit at 475 Riverside Drive.

Cancel my subscription.

ED GROSZEWSKI
Rochester, N.Y.

Red, white & blue

Reading the September 28 issue of Commonweal was a cause for concern to this reader. As I read the editorial, replete with initial detestation of the horrific attacks on our country followed by the inevitable putdowns of President George W. Bush, I became increasingly uncomfortable with your bashing of Mr. Bush and our military leaders. Clearly a number of "free thinking" (read: "liberal") people have jumped at the apparent opportunity to renew their criticism of the Republican administration. Fortunately, there are vast numbers of people in the country who would disagree with your contention that Mr. Bush has "done little to create greater confidence in his judgment and leadership." It seems that even some of his most bitter critics on the Democratic side of the House and Senate have lauded him for his handling of the situation. Then again, maybe they are just faking it, realizing that their constituents would not be pleased if their representatives gave vent to opposite feelings. How wise those politicians can be! As one Democrat put it, we are not now Republican and Democrat, we are red, white, and blue.

The bottom line is that most Americans, even those one might consider truly Christian and forgiving, find it quite appropriate to support the president and laud his handling of the situation, despite some obvious mistakes such as his use of the words "vengeance" and "crusade."

This is America, the home of the free and the brave. Recognizing this, I have learned to appreciate the honesty of Commonweal, which includes a subscription insert in the magazine which states in bold red print, "Catholic, Liberal, and Opinionated." You bet!

EAMON MAGEE
Kensington, Md.

The editors reply:

Despite incurring Ed Groszewski's displeasure and losing his subscription, we stand by our September 28 editorial. We should add that the editorial was written before President George W. Bush delivered his eloquent speech to Congress. Even Bush's staunchest political allies admit that it took the president a few days to gain his footing in the aftermath of the attack. Groszewski's other points can be addressed in order. Suffice it to say that before September 11 the Bush administration was unilateralist and isolationist (on missile defense, environmentalism, humanitarian intervention, etc.); after September 11 it is no longer either. William Pfaff addresses Groszewski's concerns on page 9. Anyone who thinks Peter Steinfels's views are interchangeable with those of the New York Times's editorial board is not a careful reader.

Commonweal will continue to criticize President Bush when we think it warranted and praise him when, in our judgment, he deserves it. Our country's true interest is better served by thoughtful criticism than by knee-jerk approbation.

We thank Eamon Magee for his thoughtful letter.

Disastrous policy

Until I read William Pfaff's comment about the September 11 attacks ("Beware the Jackals," September 28), "The immediate conclusion nearly everyone has drawn...is that they come out of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," I thought that King Abdullah of Jordan and I were the only people in the world who had come to that conclusion since the American broadcast industry, as I heard it, rarely made that point.

Instead, as an example, I saw former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu all over the tube saying the attacks had nothing to do with the conflict and blaming it all on Islamic fundamentalism. Tens of thousands of bereaved innocent Americans have paid for an American foreign policy that has proved literally disastrous. We have supported a colonial power and state-sanctioned terrorism against the Palestinians. Are the West Bank and Gaza worth what we have suffered?

JOSEPH D. POLICANO
East Hampton, N.Y.

Honest broker

I must disagree with William Pfaff's statement in the September 28th issue that "for more than thirty years, the United States has refused to make a genuinely impartial effort to find a resolution to [the Israeli-Palestinian] conflict."

For most of Israel's (post-1948) history, it was impossible to separate the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians from the broader conflict between Israel and the Arab nations surrounding it. These nations were rhetorically committed to Israel's destruction and engaged in both direct military action against Israel and supported military action by nonstate actors, such as the PLO and its various splinter groups.

Thus, there was never any likelihood that a long-term settlement between Israel and the Palestinians could be reached until a lasting peace could be achieved between Israel and its neighbors. U.S. support of Israel was important in this regard, because it convinced Israel's neighbors that the Jewish state could not be defeated militarily. However, the United States also played an important role in facilitating the negotiations between the Israelis and Egyptians that led to the 1979 Camp David accord.

The recent history of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is well known, and I am astounded that Pfaff does not believe that the United States has worked hard to move both parties toward a just and lasting settlement. The deal that Prime Minister Ehud Barak proposed at Camp David in 2000 made significant Israeli concessions on almost all issues (in fairness, Chairman Yasir Arafat made a number of important concessions as well). That an agreement was not reached was indeed regrettable. President Bill Clinton may have made some tactical mistakes in structuring the negotiations the way he did, but his failure was not due to his lack of impartiality.

The people most responsible for the failure of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process are the Israelis and the Palestinians, not the United States. It is a fantasy to think that the United States can snap its fingers and force Israel or the Palestinians to accept our vision of a just settlement. Ultimately, peace is in their hands, not ours.

J. PETER NIXON
Concord, Calif.

Measure for measure

I agree wholeheartedly with your editorial comments ("September 11, 2001," September 28) urging caution and a proportionate and measured response to the September 11 tragedy. The best measured response would be an expenditure of several billion dollars on both diplomatic approaches and real, tangible aid to our Muslim neighbors in the world and also to all the other struggling third-world countries. Our country's insularity from world events and peoples is scandalous. No wonder we are distrusted and even hated by so many.

MIKE EVANS
Anderson, Calif.