Madam, - Your front page photograph (June 25th) of the cortège of Defence Force vehicles is a sombre visual testimony to all that has been written about the Bush visit in recent weeks. - Yours, etc.,
DEIRDRE NÍ CHUANACHÁIN, The Mews, Rushbrooke Links, Cobh, Co Cork.
Madam, - Why are we all musing about whether or not George W. Bush might be re-elected in November, when as far as I'm aware, he has yet to be elected for the first time? - Yours etc.,
PETER ROYCROFT, St Brendan's Drive, Dublin 5.
Madam, - One thing to emerge from President Bush's visit, plus the May Day events, is proof of how ineffectual the left really is. Another example was that badly organised anti-bin protest earlier in the year, which petered out so pathetically.
It is ironic that the real threat facing Ireland in the future is the emergence of a far right, anti-immigrant party. Rather than waiting for this to happen, wouldn't it be a good idea to try and get to grips with racism now, instead of wasting a lot of time and energy in pursuing those hoards of Trotskyites which only exist in the Minister of Justice's head. - Yours, etc.,
JOHN MCKEE, Damer Court, Upper Wellington Street, Dublin 7.
Madam, - Your columnist Breda O'Brien wonders "how can we justify the visceral dislike that so many Irish people seem to have for Bush?" It's simple enough really - it is difficult to like a man who is responsible for the illegal occupation of another country and who shows absolute contempt for internationally accepted humanitarian standards such as the Geneva Conventions.
Breda O'Brien asks why the Irish people loved Bill Clinton despite the mistakes and "missed opportunities" of his presidency. Clinton came to Ireland in 1995 as a firm supporter of the Irish peace process, who invested more time and effort in promoting peace in Northern Ireland than any modern US President. Bush treated Ireland this year as a minor stepping stone in his bid for re-election: the brief summit with European leaders was intended entirely for domestic consumption, to show the American people that Bush has not completely burned his bridges with Europe.
Moreover, Clinton, for all his faults, was a responsible foreign policy leader who sought to exercise US power on the basis of international co-operation. Bush acts as if he is a small-town sheriff in the old Wild West, with a divine mission to root out renegade gun-slingers. The terrible carnage currently being played out in Iraq underlines the failure of US policy.
The US President fatally underestimated al-Qaeda and occupied an Islamic country by force, playing directly into the hands of Osama bin Laden. Bush has done more to undermine the security and reputation of the United States than any modern US President, including Richard Nixon at the height of the Watergate scandal.
Is this enough to justify our dislike of the man? - Yours ,etc.,
JOHN WALSH, Dunshauglin, Co Meath.
Madam, - For this writer nothing points up the suppurating hypocrisy of all these anti-war protesters than this consideration. If I have it right, the Western forces currently deployed to Iraq are a coalition and are therefore made up of the armed forces of several countries. After the US, the biggest, most active and effective by far are those of the United Kingdom.
Now, I may have missed it - I am on another planet a good deal of the time - but I have never heard of an Irish demonstration or protest of any kind whatsoever, no matter how timid and pipsqueak, directed at the UK in this business.
The conclusion is inescapable. The average Irish person, it can be observed any day, will bring to the word "American" the same dirt-ignorant, bonehead bigotry that the classic ugly little anti-semite will bring to the word "Jew"; and that is all we are seeing here. It is not anti-war, it is mere anti-Americanism, neither more nor less. Were these people's venom directed against black people, or Muslims or women or any of the other categories enjoying special protection and privileges today, the whole lot would wind up in clink. - Yours, etc.,
JOHN CULLY, Ardenza Terrace, Monkstown, Co Dublin.
Madam, - Firstly, I strongly agree with the points made by your correspondent Conor Roddy (June 25th) regarding our relationship with America; however, I feel strangely compelled to comment on the linguistic gymnastics he uses to make them.
Even as a self-confessed "half-competent grammarian", I was taken aback by the use of the phrase "evincing by the use of such pleonastic vapidities", the semantic equivalent of "Shock and Awe". Having previously believed myself to have explored most avenues of the English language (although l've never found occasion to use "evincing" or "vapidities", at least until today), I was forced to consult my dictionary to learn, in a previously uncharted back road, that pleonastic means using more words than are necessary to convey the intended meaning. This only leaves me with one question: what word means using much more complicated and obscure words than are necessary to convey the intended meaning? - Yours, etc.,
ALAN KELLY, Willow Grove, Coolroe Heights, Ballincollig, Co Cork.