MB Civic

To the Editor:

Re “C.I.A. Choice Says He’s Independent of the Pentagon” (front page, May 19):

Gen. Michael V. Hayden’s “testimony” to the Senate Intelligence Committee is as predictable as the “confirmation hearings” of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.: softball questions lobbed to the candidate by his fawning Republican allies; assurances to his cowed Democratic interlocutors that the general will provide detailed answers to their questions in a “closed session”; and the result a foregone conclusion in which the president will get what he wants.

This is the sham democracy we wish to impose, by force of arms, on the rest of the world?

There are good reasons to maintain secret intelligence capabilities in a complex and dangerous world — especially one in which our nation is so widely hated. Those of us who have worked on or with the United States intelligence services know that satellite cartography, electronic surveillance, algorithms generated to track network communications and many other sophisticated systems may help protect us from harm.

But we also know that our government is populated by liars and ideologues who cannot be trusted to use these resources legally and with prudence.

Barry M. Katz
Palo Alto, Calif., May 19, 2006
The writer is the author of a history of the United States intelligence agencies.

• 

To the Editor:

Gen. Michael V. Hayden, as a serving officer, is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and so long as he remains in uniform will be a subordinate to the secretary of defense. If this gentleman wishes to pursue a civilian job he should retire and join the civilian ranks.

What’s next, Air Force chiefs of staff working for defense contractors while still in uniform?

Bob Green
Houston, May 19, 2006

To the Editor:

In “Hillary Can Run, but Can She Win?” (column, May 18), Bob Herbert raises an important issue about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s potential run for the presidency — her gender. While Mr. Herbert claims that it will be difficult for a woman to get elected in the United States, recent evidence proves otherwise.

Over the last year Chile, Liberia, Germany and Jamaica have all sworn in their first female heads of government, and the United States is poised to do the same. A recent poll shows that nearly 92 percent of Americans are ready for a female commander in chief.

And in a Roper Public Affairs poll that the White House Project commissioned last fall, nearly 80 percent felt that a woman would do better than or as well as a man on foreign policy, homeland security and the economy.

If the concern is about gender being a handicap, then we should be recruiting more women to run for the presidency, so that we can choose a leader based strictly on her agenda, and not her gender.

Marie Wilson
Pres., The White House Project
New York, May 18, 2006

• 

To the Editor:

As a liberal woman who was a big fan of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I say no, she cannot win. Formerly a strong, independent woman, Mrs. Clinton has become mired in the game of politics, working so hard to be both dove and hawk, playing all the party strategies, that we don’t know what she stands for or believes.

Bob Herbert is correct; we want real leadership. Where are Mrs. Clinton’s impassioned speeches on health care for everyone, her concern for the widening divide between rich and poor? Where is her outrage against the countless abuses of the current administration?

I will no longer vote for her, and that is the opinion of most of my liberal friends and colleagues.

Shara Lamont
Albuquerque, May 18, 2006

• 

To the Editor:

Bob Herbert and others are overly concerned with “the all-important matter of electability” for judging potential Democratic presidential candidates. It seemed that many in the Democratic Party and in the media concluded in 2004 that John Kerry was much more “electable” than Howard Dean. I would argue that hindsight has shown that those two candidates had equal amounts of presidential electability: zero.

Maybe if Democrats coalesce around a candidate who they think should win, they will be able to get the country excited enough about that candidate so that he or she does win.

Eric Laufer
New York, May 18, 2006

• 

To the Editor:

Bob Herbert strongly questions Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s ability to be elected president, believing that current poll numbers “are a recipe for anxiety.” As a college student from New York, I believe we must shrug off this defeatist attitude.

Mrs. Clinton speaks to what the Democratic Party is about: the common good. She has always been a hard-working public servant, and rightly calls flag-burning a threat to our unity and proposes smart solutions to reduce the number of abortions. Though it is apparently disheartening to Mr. Herbert, she speaks to the middle ground, where I and many Americans proudly stand.

Rahul Prabhakar
Cambridge, Mass., May 18, 2006

• 

To the Editor:

There are numerous reasons to oppose Hillary Rodham Clinton’s deep-pocket, seemingly media-driven candidacy, but at this point I’ll just say that almost all Democrats I know (both male and female) do not support her, let alone think she can win. And if San Francisco liberals are not behind her — who then?

Democrats desperately need a strong, authentic candidate — one who is not afraid to speak out — but it is definitely not Mrs. Clinton. Her handicap, despite Bob Herbert’s contention, is not gender; what we want is virtue.

Toni Illick
San Francisco, May 18, 2006