www.roanoke.com

History will judge Bush more kindly

There seems to be a rush to judgment among present-day liberals to portray the war in Iraq as a lost cause.

A recent letter stated, "I, for one, have had quite enough of staying the course and allowing more troops to be killed." Another writer voiced the opinion that Bush's presidency would be judged poorly due to the war.

If this type of philosophy had prevailed a few decades ago, we would not have taken Iwo Jima (more than 6,000 deaths) or won World War II (more than 400,000 deaths).

Today's liberals would have invoked their now infamous strategy of "cutting and running" before the job was finished.

Likewise, Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Reagan could never have attained their current level of esteem by historians given such a rush to judgment.

We quickly forget Truman's unpopular and controversial decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan or the harsh criticism Reagan received regarding his tough stance against communism. Nevertheless, both actions by these embattled leaders were eventually successful.

Admittedly, Iraq is a different war in a different time. But the final judgment will be made by history, not by those pushing a particular political agenda or prematurely declaring a presidential obituary.

Our mission is complete

Why are we hanging around Iraq? Our stated objectives have been accomplished.

Saddam Hussein was toppled and has faced the hangman's noose. A democratic government has been elected by the purple-fingered people and is safely ensconced in the Green Zone.

A constitution has been written that assures equal treatment under the law to all citizens. Resources have been allocated for rebuilding the country, and police and troop training is so popular that half the male population (or so it seems) insist on wearing the official uniforms.

All that's needed now is for we Americans to get out of the way so that the Iraqis can show the rest of the Middle East how fruitful a democratic society, in their midst, can be.

Goode furthers debate on immigration crisis

While some would make a major issue of Rep. Virgil Goode's statement that the Quran should not be used to swear in a representative of this Christian nation, they miss a most important point.

While the newly elected Muslim representative from Minnesota is free to make a religious statement by insisting that he use the Quran, Goode is censured by the media for expressing his views as a Christian.

Goode has been consistent in his efforts to preserve the traditional American way of life -- so well personified in Southwest Virginia -- that is threatened by the massive influx of immigrants, both illegal and legal (because of relaxed immigration restrictions). He reflects the deep concern of his constituents and most Americans across the nation.

I applaud his actions to reverse the tide of illegal immigration as well as his strong defense of his position on this issue.

Hopefully, he has furthered the national debate and more people will begin to recognize that immigration is the major crisis of our time. It is a crisis that we cannot ignore because it could forever change our way of life.

Goode hijacks the Constitution

I am outraged by the letter sent to constituents from Rep. Virgil Goode in which he states that, unless we "adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran." He is, of course, referring to the election of Keith Ellison in Minnesota.

Ellison was born in Detroit, and I am having a hard time understanding how immigration reform and electing Muslims to Congress have anything to do with one another.

Ellison is not an immigrant, illegal or otherwise. It is my understanding that the majority of illegal immigrants in this country are from primarily Catholic countries, not Muslim countries.

This letter reveals Goode's blatant racism and disdain for the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees us all the right to practice the religion of our choice.

Rather than strapping a bomb to his chest or hijacking an airplane, Goode instead prefers to hijack the American Constitution and turn it into an appendix to the Bible.

I am ashamed that he represents my state, and I hope that others across the country and the world will not assume that all Virginians share his bigoted opinions.

Despite motive, illegal immigrant breaks laws

In response to your news article on Leonardo (Dec. 31, "Far from home"), an admitted illegal immigrant who drives with no license and drives with no proper registration or other documents required of people like me:

All the laws he continues to break, however, are done to better the family he abandoned when he left Mexico and illegally came across the border.

This huge four-page article made many references to the fact that everything Leonardo does, whether legal or not, is all to "better his family." That includes all the laws he breaks on a daily basis to remain in this city and country.

So am I to interpret from these bleeding-heart compassionate articles on illegals that laws broken to "better your family" come with no punishment?

That certainly is the message that is being sent from the continual turning of heads in the matter of illegal immigrants.

If my color photos were plastered all over the newspaper after I had broken the law to "better my family," I would soon be hearing the rap of the law on my door. And I don't think The Roanoke Times' purposely omitting my last name would matter.

Schools need links to the community

I would like to respond to Dave Dabay's letter to the editor (Jan. 1, "Donation could have been put to better use") regarding the new entrance sign at Patrick Henry High School.

While a direct link between a sign and student achievement may seem less than obvious, community involvement and communication are two key elements necessary for the success of our school system.

If that sign can be a small catalyst for the full community engagement in the schools needed for the economic health of our city, the return on the anonymous donor's investment could be immeasurable.

Other houses aren't restored properly

Having lived on Day Avenue for almost 20 years, I've seen a lot of good and bad changes that have taken place in the past five to 10 years.

I just don't understand how other people can tell a homeowner how the repairs on his house have to be done.

These people who make the decisions are middle- to high-class people, with enough income to pay for the repairs they want done. They are not looking at the person's financial ability. To restore a roof would cost Aubrey Hicks $20,000.

To me, if these people want things done their way, start a fund to help with financial situations. But I bet these people would in no way agree to this.

Several things bother me.

For one, they say they want these houses restored back to the way they used to be. But if you look at the work that is being done in the 400 block of Day Avenue, those houses never had a garage built under the house or two-story decks that are screened in. This is not what I call restoring houses back to their original designs.