NYT LTEs: Must Aid to Iraq Be Partisan? (6 Letters)

Must Aid to Iraq Be Partisan? (6 Letters)

To the Editor:

Lifelong Democrat that I am, I must agree with David Brooks's analysis of my party's opposition to the proposal of President Bush to grant all those billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq ("The Good, the Bad, the Ugly," column, Oct. 18).

Yet Mr. Brooks's argument would have been far stronger had he mentioned one of the primary reasons we Democrats are having trouble with the Bush proposal.

The president has already given away billions of dollars in tax cuts to already rich Americans. The rest of us are wondering if there are more billions we could use to rebuild decaying American schools, infrastructure and cities.

HARRY T. COOK
Royal Oak, Mich., Oct. 18, 2003

•

To the Editor:

Re "The Good, the Bad, the Ugly," by David Brooks (column, Oct. 18):

Although I now have serious doubts about the wisdom of the United States' intervention in Iraq, the results of a major American failure in Iraq would be disastrous.

Iraq is already saddled with enormous debts to France, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other countries. These obligations will have to be greatly reduced, and payments on the resulting reduced principal amounts will need to be rescheduled.

If the United States insisted on a loan approach for a significant part of our assistance, we would lose any ability to get those creditors to go along with necessary debt relief for Iraq.

SCOTT H. OCHILTREE
Washington, Oct. 18, 2003

(more)

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/21/opinion/L21BROO.html?ex=1067313600&en=7f5e2f04acb3bd1b&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVER