Readers write about media reviving the cold war, Chávez and democracy, Clinton's negative polling, fiscal responsibility, and trends for US debt.
Regarding the Oct. 4 article, "Russia flexes new muscle in Europe": This article about Russia's "resurgence" is a lot of warmongering disinformation.
The mainstream American media are reviving cold-war belligerence against Russia, using an enhanced style of presentation similar to the Soviet media with their rants against the West and the United States.
Now things are the reverse from what they were. The US is bullying other countries; bombing Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq; supporting terrorists in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Chechnya; demonizing people or countries that disagree with it; and condemning as "belligerent" any country with different interests than those of the US.
It is good that Russia, freed from its Communist hypnosis, has the power to revive its economy and pursue its own independent politics, independent of President Bush's aspirations for global domination by the US.
Look what happened to the Soviet Union in 1991 – the same thing will happen to the US if it doesn't cut out the current politics of insanity.
In response to Carlos Sabino's Oct. 9 Opinion piece, "Latin America doesn't need another radical like Chávez": Mr. Sabino sets up the weakest of straw men by making a comparison between Paraguayan presidential candidate Fernándo Lugo and Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez and then demonizing the latter with a series of assertions that don't bear inspection.
For example, Sabino describes the Venezuelan leader as "antidemocratic" when Mr. Chávez was elected by a process far more transparent than our own here in the United States was.
In describing Chávez as a "dictatorial strongman," Sabino mischaracterizes the reforms now being implemented in Venezuela, which include constituting nationwide community councils tasked with assessing local needs and developing plans to meet them using federal funds.
There may be a case to make against Mr. Lugo. Sabino doesn't make one here.
Regarding the Oct. 4 article, "Clinton moves up in polls and money": The problem with many of the news stories asserting that Hillary Clinton is supposedly doing so well in the polls, is that they do not take into account her negative polling ratings.