Failed New York bomb plot
Get serious about terrorist threat
How soon we seem to forget, but here we go again, having to be jolted back into the world of reality.
There is no other way to say it other than that there is a real threat out there in the world from people who wish our country harm.
That threat, in capital letters, is RADICAL ISLAMIC FANATICISM.
So with all respect, the president of the United States needs to rethink his vocabulary and redefine this enemy of ours to include this group of fundamentally sick elements who in the name of their God instruct their followers to commit mass murder against our citizens of peace.
Mr. President, you took an oath to protect us, not your image in the world of political correctness, where people lambast you anyway, and mock you for being weak.
Yes, you're damn right I felt safer with George and Dick in office.
They at least knew how to call it as it really was, and the enemy feared retribution if they messed with us.
Raymond Brown, Apollo Beach
Obama is just lucky
The recent attempt to bomb an airliner by the "underwear bomber" was not foiled by the U.S. government. The bomber's underwear bomb failed to detonate. The Times Square car bomber was not foiled by the government. His bomb failed to explode through faulty workmanship.
Yet the Obama administration has engaged in much back-slapping about their ability to quickly apprehend these two terrorists. The question has to be asked: Why?
The fact that neither of these bombers were successful has nothing to do with good security measures on the part of the administration. In fact, the opposite is true. Both were allowed to travel in and out of the United States at will. Both accumulated the necessary hardware to accomplish their missions. Both gained access to their targets of choice.
Their failure to kill Americans had nothing to do with security measures. They came within two faulty fuses of killing hundreds of our fellow citizens. These individuals continue to slip through our security nets at will. I would suggest that the Obama administration stop the back-slapping and get serious. We can't stay "lucky" forever.
Jay Johnson, St. Petersburg
Handoff of seat irks many | May 4, story
Hernando County Sheriff Richard Nugent says that because the 5th Congressional District seat belongs to U.S. Rep. Ginny Browne-Waite that the two of them are free to subvert democracy. Funny. If I had known all along that the seat belonged to Browne-Waite I wouldn't have bothered voting against her all those times. I thought the seat belonged to the people of District 5.
Browne-Waite's assertion that her critics must belong to the Charlie Crist wing of the Republican Party is interesting. I didn't realize that there was a wing of the Republican Party that deferred to the citizens and acted in the best interests of the state as Gov. Crist has with SB 6 and the issue of offshore drilling. Go, Republicans!
Barrett Hardy, Spring Hill
Handoff of seat irks many | May 4, story
A double standard?
I don't seem to remember the same sense of indignation when Carrie Meek handpicked son Kendrick to succeed her in Congress. Do I sense a double standard here, or is this just a manifestation of your visceral hatred of Republicans?
Jack Augsback, Palm Harbor
Morals are missing
Is our political system morally bankrupt? Certainly, the present legislative system of earmarking pet projects by legislators is morally bankrupt.
How about the front-page article in Sunday's St. Petersburg Times regarding David Foster (Bipartisan support for failed developer)? It seems U.S. Rep. C.W. Bill Young and others wanted to give the taxpayers' borrowed money away without doing due diligence. This is a classic example of why the earmarking of pet projects must stop.
Instead, all government expenditures should go through a committee process with the committee having a predefined financial budget. All projects should be prioritized by an independent authority. Only those top rated projects should get funding.
Then we learn of another example of moral bankruptcy. In Monday's PolitiFact.com, we learn that Rep. Young has a "campaign vehicle," an expensive Lincoln Navigator, paid for out of his "campaign money." Here a congressman, who is making well over $100,000 a year, takes the hard-earned money of contributors to buy an expensive car instead of using the money for campaign purposes. Is this morally correct?
I will remember these transgressions at the polls.
Willson Edwards, St. Petersburg
Crist's divorce from GOP gets ugly | May 5
How quickly they change
It's amazing how suddenly the Republican Party wants nothing to do with Charlie Crist. He was accepted as a Republican for years in the state, but now that acceptance is conditional. "If you agree with our conditions then you're one of us." If not, they blame him for creating "this mess." Fine example of professional public servants, huh?
Peggy Landers, Dunedin