Dear Editor:
The first time I read one of Tom Birchfield’s columns, I found his one-sided remarks slightly humorous. After being bombarded issue after issue with his archaic and ineffective political bias, I no longer find myself amused.
There are some points from Birchfield’s column from the Nov. 11 issue that I would like to address:
1. “Our veterans are given nothing in return for their services to their country.”
Is Birchfield a veteran? Does he even know any veterans? His statement is a grossly skewed observation of the status of veteran’s benefits. I am a veteran, and I served eight years in the Navy. Here are some of the benefits I am currently receiving:
The Montgomery G.I. Bill: With an investment of only $1,200 of my money, I am getting a return of about 25 times that amount for use toward education. Try getting that kind of interest at your bank. This money has been invaluable in acquiring my college education.
Free medical: Through the Veteran’s Affairs Hospital right across the street from this campus, I am able to get medical attention at no cost (due to my financial status as a full-time student). Yes, I must deal with red tape and waiting periods sometimes, but at least I have somewhere to go for help without worrying about astronomical hospital charges or personal medical insurance I cannot afford.
2. “These veterans are not getting what they were promised and … the government is cutting their benefits.”
I’m not saying that our country’s treatment of veterans is perfect. I believe there is much improvement to be made. Birchfield, being a staunch Democrat, should be reminded that the Clinton administration facilitated the drastic cutbacks that put our veterans and active-duty members benefits at risk. Only after the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, during Clinton’s second term, did these benefits begin to turn around.
However, the damage done to the active military’s retention and recruitment rates are still suffering.
3. “The Bush administration has finally gotten what it wanted and America is going to attack.”
Is Birchfield on the National Security Council? If so, could he let us know when we are going to attack? Whether America goes to war or not will be determined by Iraq’s willingness to comply with the United Nation’s sanctions, most of which have been in place since the Gulf War. The fact that Saddam Hussein has repeatedly evaded the U.N. resolutions and failed to disarm is not the result of the Bush administration’s actions.
Birchfield asks why we should go to war with a country who has not attacked us (as far as he knows. Perhaps bin Laden is in one of the Iraqi palaces as we speak).
The facts are available for any who wish to read them. You can go to the U.S. State Department web site and read a report – “Saddam Hussein’s Iraq” released Sept. 13, 1999 and updated March 24, 2000 – at the following address: http://usinfo. state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/iraq99.htm#executive
In conclusion, I do not have the space to reply to each area of Birchfield’s column that is lacking in substance. However, I would ask that in the future he would try to find a clear topic, research his topic and write a cohesive and informative article. No one is asking for Pulitzer material; however, making broad, uninformed and unobjective comments is just bad writing.
James Cross
Editor’s note: Birchfield is a
veteran of the armed services

Author