Letters submitted by BDN readers are verified by BDN Opinion Page staff. Send your letters to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Milley should resign
Recent remarks to Congress by Gen. Mark Milley are very troubling. First, he called the withdrawal from Afghanistan a “strategic failure.” There is nothing strategic about Afghanistan, and as America moves away from a petroleum-based economy, the only strategic American goal in the region is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
Second, he favored continuing the war in Afghanistan and kicking the can down the road. The only outcomes from his choice would be providing military officers a venue to punch their tickets for promotion and returning American body bags.
Third, the generals did not foresee the sudden and complete collapse of the Afghan army. Their excuses are lame: the Afghan army was trained and modeled after the American army; and the readiness of the Afghan army could not be gauged. Fortunately, the poorly planned withdrawal succeeded, but only because of the Taliban.
And finally, he said his resignation would be an act of “political defiance.” What nonsense! What about the creed of duty, honor, and country? I think it was his duty to resign gracefully if he strongly disagreed with President Joe Biden. Biden should do him a favor and show him the door.
Collins won’t pay for what she bought
Sen. Susan Collins supported bills that added nearly $8 trillion to the U.S. debt during the previous administration. And now that the bill has come due, she essentially says, “Nope, not gonna pay it!”
As rationale, Collins says that Democrats recently passed a $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill and are trying to pass a big spending bill, so they are the folks who should pay for the past debts that she helped incur.
I think this is a despicably partisan move and horrifyingly irresponsible. Collins shows her true colors by supporting defaulting on debts she incurred, putting the faith and credit of the U.S. at risk.
Apparently it’s party over country for Sen. Collins.
No on Question 3
Although it sounds innocuous with a feel-good name, the Right to Food constitutional amendment will leave a bad taste in Mainers’ mouths for decades to come.
A recent critique noted the vagueness in reasoning by those in support for what might become a problem someday, as to be entirely insufficient in justifying change to Maine’s constitution.When this measure came before the Legislature, it was opposed by Maine Veterinary Medical Association, Maine Municipal Association, Maine Farm Bureau, Animal Rights Maine and Maine Potato Board among other opponents.
I believe it is too vague and far-reaching to have a permanent place in Maine’s Constitution.
In Maine, it’s economic hardship that leads to hunger or food insecurity. Question 3 doesn’t authorize a penny for the hungry. With such ambiguous language, this amendment, if passed, could pave the way for companies like Monsanto to do whatever they want to our food and could strip away animal welfare standards in animal agriculture.
Its passage could take away the power of local governments to provide proper health and safety, anti-pollution and zoning standards, create confusion and invite legal challenges when it comes to enforcing Maine wildlife laws, while threatening the ability of legislators at the local or state level to ensure gun safety and animal welfare, including acceptable husbandry practices, wildlife management, zoning, and animal rights. Food safety in our communities would become a public health concern.
I don’t think the architects of the amendment have given Mainers a single good reason for proposing this amendment to our constitution.
Animal Behavior & Healing