Is anybody else bothered by the fact that, on March 24, President Donald Trump said he just found out that members of his Cabinet and national security team were discussing the Houthi attack plans on Signal, a commercial messaging app? First of all, why wasn’t he an actual participant in that discussion on March 15, the day of the attack? And why wouldn’t such a group be personally assembled in the Situation Room, a secured government location, for that discussion?
Furthermore, why wouldn’t he know by what means his administration officials communicate with one another about military actions? As the president, it’s his job to be involved in every discussion and decision relating to our military’s plans to attack another country. He cannot excuse himself from this egregious national security breach by simply saying he “didn’t know.”
If he didn’t know, he’s not doing his job.
— Judith Muench, Chicago
Reaction to breach
Concerning the letter “Mission was a success” (March 28), two or more wrongs don’t make a right. The unprovoked attacks on ships in the Suez region by Houthis are clearly wrong, and the U.S. has justifiably retaliated in order to defend our interests. But it was also wrong for President Donald Trump’s administration to allow for the breaching of national security protocol while carrying out that retaliation, as demonstrated by the Signal chat debacle. Wrong, too, has been an attempt to cover up the debacle by first attempting to brush off the episode as frivolous, not worthy of a closer look, and then, when the public would not tolerate that, seeking to blame the whole thing on the journalist who was invited to join the chat and sharing of near real-time, top-secret attack plans. That is 100% absurd!
Labeling the mission as a success misses the point of a national security breach. Contrary to what the letter writer has stated, this was a deadly serious matter. To compare the incident to a possible leak of a football game plan is insulting to the U.S. military members who secure and safeguard our personal freedom each and every day. That breach put U.S. service members’ lives at risk, not to mention potentially feeding our enemies eager to eavesdrop on the most secret conversations about our defense systems and methods.
Besides the journalist being invited and sent texts by the principals and staff in that infamous meeting, who else may have been sent texts in the same Signal thread? How do we know the breach was limited to only one individual? How did the security breach take place at all?
Further, the seriousness of the incident is still unfolding. A full, independent investigation is warranted. It will be time to move on, but not before the government gives this incident a thorough and honest vetting and then duly punishes those identified as responsible to minimize the risk of recurrence. Without consequences, wrong behavior will never change.
If we do anything less, how can we teach our children two or more wrongs don’t make a right and that serious misdeeds against our country’s interests should be punished?
— Mark Grenchik, Chicago
Abandoning decorum
Public officials once held themselves to a higher standard in their speech and conduct, recognizing that they represented the American people. Unfortunately, many, such as U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, have abandoned that decorum, resorting to profanity that was once unthinkable in professional settings. This diminishes their credibility as leaders and erodes the dignity of the institutions they serve. When elected officials engage in coarse and unrefined speech, they lower themselves.
Americans deserve leaders who uphold the integrity of their office, not ones who resort to crude language to make a point. If members of Congress cannot communicate in a respectful and dignified manner, they should reconsider their fitness to serve.
— Al Zvinakis, Lemont
Help educate voters
The editorial “Disruption and disorder are undermining renewed civic engagement” (March 24) reminded me of when Donald Trump as a candidate was wounded by an assassin’s bullet. Elected officials immediately decried the violence and called out to “lower the temperature” of politics.
Nobody took seriously the call for less rancor, and why should we? Republicans and Democrats were not conferring to draft bipartisan rules of respectful, productive engagement, and the public was not demanding that they do so. Nor were newspapers.
Who is to lead us toward the “open, respectful dialogue” endorsed by the Tribune Editorial Board? And how do we achieve that, given decades of building bad habits that divide us into enemies?
The editorial didn’t advise how to overcome tribal hatred and instead focused on the poisonous news of today — disruption and disorder in town halls and political vandalism of Tesla cars. It urged readers to channel anger and frustration into something productive.
I have a question in response to this advice: What should journalists do to equip the public for today’s “renewed civic engagement” that the editorial board endorsed?
It should be obvious that polarization is an American problem that Americans need to solve. However, the issue hides in plain sight: Since “our side” didn’t cause the problem, we are not responsible for solving it. It is solvable only by the “crazies on the other side.”
So no one is accountable for solutions.
Polarization is a discrete issue that attacks our trust in American democracy. And it has discrete solutions no one is talking about.
My request to journalists is to report on existing ways to work together across divides, amplify what works, and editorialize about good and bad examples by officials and candidates. We need to inject accurate information about the problem and solutions into political discourse. Voters need to evaluate candidates on this issue — but need your help.
The Champaign News-Gazette, for example, invited the local chapter of Braver Angels to write guest columns about depolarization. The news might spotlight the Edgar Fellows program. Or journalists could report work by the House Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, bipartisan insiders who recommend ways to depolarize Congress.
Equip us to talk about our suicidal politics; light the way forward with possibilities so a newspaper’s advice to run for office, contact members of Congress and write letters to the editor won’t feel like empty “thoughts and prayers” issued after mass shootings.
— Chuck Stone, Chicago
Criticizing the US
I’d like to commend Heidi Stevens for her accurate, clear, thoughtful column of March 23, “Criticizing White House is not hating US.” She aptly and profoundly portrays the U.S. as the country all of us love but also recognize has flaws. The U.S. has been a beacon of hope, a source of comfort and aid, a herald of and promoter of democracy, and a cradle of research and civil rights. Stevens rightly acknowledges the fact that we have not always done our best, but she also points out that we have been a nation full of ideals and still a “work in progress.”
All of us who truly love our country will admit that we have sometimes failed to live up to our ideals, but, as a work in progress, it is inevitable that we’ve made mistakes. However, in no way does that acknowledgement mean that we hate our country. We are honest, accepting our faults and trying to correct or improve such flaws.
Just as we don’t claim that parents hate their children when their kids make mistakes and deserve a reprimand — rather, they love their children enough to recognize their failings and show them and teach them how to improve. That is love. To fail to do so is foolish, reckless and damning for their children’s life and future.
So, it is and should be with those of us who love our country. We must call out those who try to ignore or misrepresent our country’s failures. We owe it to our own future and that of the world.
— Carol Q. Van Durme, Chicago
‘Third world country’
Remember during the presidential campaign when President Donald Trump and his supporters referred to the U.S. as being a “third world country” under President Joe Biden, infiltrated by migrants who were “eating the dogs and cats”?
Well, here we are, just two months into the new administration. There’s a measles outbreak spreading in Texas and other states. There’s a tuberculosis outbreak in Kansas. Avian bird flu still rages, for which our new secretary of health and human services proposes we just let run its course, to see which birds are immune to the disease. Very scientific. In Florida, the Republican governor and Republican-majority legislature are proposing loosening child labor laws to allow 14-year-olds to work overnight shifts, to overcome a worker shortage.
Oh yeah, and our senior military and national security leadership group-texted war plans, sharing them with a journalist, no less.
Thank God we’re no longer acting like a “third world country.”
— Frank Kern, Chicago
Targeting autism
On March 21, President Donald Trump announced that all the educational services for people with disabilities would be moved from the Department of Education to the Department of Health and Human Services. HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. plans to make “America healthy again” by trying to solve what he calls a large epidemic: chronic illnesses, including autism, and any form of neurodivergence in which prescribed pills are recommended.
Kennedy also wants to create “wellness farms” for people taking neuropsychiatric drugs and those with substance abuse disorders; people in those farms would not have access to phones or any drugs, including ones that can help them with their conditions, while they work on farms for little or no pay.
I’m a proud autistic American who takes medication for post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety and benefits from the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Supreme Court Olmstead ruling, and other important federal and local legislation that allows me to build a family, get the best health care possible, live independently, fulfill my dreams, work to make a living and contribute through voting. I will not subject myself to exploitation like my disabled ancestors before me. I would rather die fighting for the livelihood and freedom of my community than be content with growing organic food for nothing.
What the current administration is doing is violating our rights as Americans with autism and neurodivergence, especially the ADA, the civil rights acts, and the First, 14th and 15th amendments of our glorious, utopian Constitution.
If Kennedy’s plan comes to fruition, the Trump administration would throw away 38 years of my struggle to live boldly and proudly as an autistic person, all because of false science and fear about neurodivergence. If this happens, they will throw away our ability to be ourselves and thrive in America as neurodivergent and autistic citizens.
If you’re autistic or neurodivergent, or if you know a loved one who is autistic and neurodivergent, I encourage you to tell your members of Congress to not only produce statements condemning the exploitation of Americans but also to do whatever it takes to stop this from happening to us. We appreciate all the advocacy and support we can get. Our lives depend on it.
— Timotheus Gordon Jr., Chicago
Cuts by algorithm
Just a quick response to letter writer Larry Craig (“This Christian approves,” March 24), who rightly indicates that Elon Musk and his team are not advising the president on matters of religion, even though they think this is a Christian country, so it is not a Christian thing. He does indicate, incorrectly, that Musk “seems to be doing a very good job” of finding waste and fraud in government. I emphatically disagree with this statement.
Musk is slashing and burning departments without any consideration as to what may be waste or fraud. His team has no accountants or auditors. They are using bots to remove words the current administration members find offensive. They are removing personnel without regard to people’s positions, what they accomplish, or how their removal will negatively impact the public that needs the services.
This slash-and-burn technique is without reasoning, such as removing words without context — for example, the name of the airplane the Enola Gay, since it has the word “gay” in it. It was the pilot’s mother’s name not some conversion conspiracy.
Another horrifying rewriting of history this team is participating in is removing historical sections about prominent African American, Hispanic and female veterans from Arlington National Cemetery’s website. Is that what you call “a good job”? I call it a damn shameful chapter of the United States.
This is what Musk’s team is doing — removal by algorithm. No thought, insight, auditing or accounting whatsoever.
— Paula J. Schneiderman, Chicago
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
