Reading the response of Mr. Hoffman to my letter to the editor did solve one dilemma for me. Based upon his rambling accusations (addressed below), it became blatantly apparent that there was one Christmas gift which would be of utmost benefit for Mr. Hoffman: A quality pair of reading glasses, as he obviously had extreme difficulty in attempting to determine what I actually wrote.

Anyone who takes the time re-read my letter will see that the basic thrust was to provide, in response to Mr. Hoffman’s challenge, a viable, beneficial method as to how “any Democrat will actually help veterans.”

My proposal ,with which Mr. Hoffman apparently agrees, as noted in his letter of Dec. 4, is to provide expanded medical care to veterans by allowing them to have access to Veterans Administration (VA) medical facilities, if not overly inconvenient, and/or care, free of charge, via Medicare.

Mr. Hoffman also concurs that he would have no problem in paying for these expanded services — good for Mr. Hoffman. Now let me address the baseless accusations of Mr. Hoffman:

I did not state that the VA is “a huge bureaucracy” whose every failing “can be blamed on the Bush administration.”

I wrote that the “VA has improved since the inception of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,” with the suggestion that the biggest problem was for those veterans who had to travel great distances, hence the suggestion for Medicare availability.

I did not state that the VA was a “huge bureaucracy whose every failing” was due to the Bush administration. Nowhere in my article do I blame the Bush administration for any problems related to the quality of medical care provided by the VA.

I, along with many truly conservative Republicans and most Democrats, did note my concern with the Bush administration passing along the $1 trillion cost of the Iraq war to future generations. I requested that the future cost of medical care for veterans be part of the federal budget and not be “phantomly funded” for future generations to pay as is the Bush method regarding the Iraq war.

Nowhere in my article did I “rail against Bush for Iraq and the treatment of veterans” or accuse Mr. Hoffman of being “anti-veteran.”

Mr. Hoffman is the individual who mentions the idea of “let’s just ban religion, period.” I am sure that Mr. Hoffman will agree wholeheartedly that every American has the guaranteed right of freedom of, and from, religion. Surely no disagreement here.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein “funded terrorism” to some unknown degree, but could Mr. Hoffman please not “dodge” (his accusatory term) the issue and cite any instance where Saddam Hussein’s funded terrorism was expressly directed against the United States?

How many United States citizens were killed by the actions of Saddam Hussein? Come on now, Mr. Hoffman, no “dodge” and undocumented “empty rhetoric” (your words, also) please.

Mr. Hoffman is deeply disturbed by the government being “in the business of running health care at all” and “a bureaucracy (the VA, I assume) that is in all likelihood run by Democrat-leaning government employees.”

Mr. Hoffman, in his “in-depth study” of the functioning of the U.S. government, is obviously aware that the Defense Department is also a huge bureaucracy. As such, since it also undoubtedly has numerous “Democrat-leaning employees,” should it be in the business of “running national defense”?

Mr. Hoffman is unquestionably not in favor of national/socialized medical care due to its, by the definition of Mr. Hoffman, inefficiency as a bureaucracy. Since national defense is also a huge government bureaucracy and socialist in nature (EVERY U.S. citizen receives the same amount of national defense regardless of income or social standing) should it be privatized? No “dodging,” please, Mr. Hoffman.

Turning to the issue of the sanctity of life of the unborn and innocent civilian war casualties, there is one aspect of the topic where Mr. Hoffman and I will undoubtedly concur: Neither he nor I will ever have to be faced with the gut-wrenching decision as whether or not to personally carry a fetus to term.

Why any woman, be they pro- or anti-choice, would totally abdicate this decision to a male is beyond me. I am sure that any female is fully capable of personally examining her conscience and/or discussing it with her God, however defined, in considering all of the factors (medical, psychological, financial, sociological and spiritual) when a totally personal decision is necessary.

A female may refer to as many sources, including any males/females she deems relevant, BUT, the final decision is hers. To define a female as a “murderer,” as does Mr. Hoffman, for exercising her pro-choice decision regarding abortion is not only draconian in nature, but more suited to the time of the Inquisition than the 21st century.

By the definition of Mr. Hoffman, any female who takes a “morning after pill” following intercourse should be charged with committing “murder” as she is not giving conception a fair chance — a definite plus for underemployed lawyers, but a frightening setback for women and the freedom of choice guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Last, but not least, Mr. Hoffman, when comparing the U.S. war efforts against Japan and Germany with that of the U.S. war against Iraq, might want to check and find out for himself that, unlike Iraq, Japan actually attacked the U.S. and within several days Germany declared war on the U.S.

A little further research will reveal that the civilian economies and associated work forces of Japan and Germany, unlike Iraq, were an integral part of their war efforts in the production of world class war fighting equipment and supplies.

The U.S. war effort against the Axis powers was defined by the Catholic Church as a “just war.” Not so regarding our preventive attacks on Iraq. As stated in, believe it or not, a FOX News.Com report of March 12, 2003, “Pope John Paul II and top Vatican officials are unleashing a barrage of condemnations of a possible U.S. military strike on Iraq, calling it immoral, risky and a ‘crime against peace” (emphasis added).

The Vatican’s then-foreign minister, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, said, ”a unilateral military strike had” no justification on grounds of self-defense.” For additional evidence of the Catholic Church’s views on “Just War Doctrine,” and how our war against the Iraqi people could never be described as “just,” Mr. Hoffman should consult the website, Catholic Answers (www.catholic.com/library) where he will find out that none of the necessary four conditions for a “just war” are fulfilled as regards to Iraq.

If not convinced by the foregoing and later testimony is needed, I suggest that Mr. Hoffman consult the website ZENIT, which presents views of the World Seen From Rome (www.zenit.org/article), where it is pointed out that as late as January 2006, the U.S. Catholic Bishop’s Statement on Iraq pointed out that “our Conference remains highly skeptical of the concept of ‘preventive war’ as ‘engaging in a preventive war without clear proof that an attack is imminent cannot fail to raise serious moral and judicial questions.’”

Mr. Hoffman, the views of the Catholic Church are quite clear and specific concerning both the unborn and the immorality of an unjust war (Iraq) when it comes to the issue of the sanctity of life. If you are a true Catholic who cares about the sanctity of all life, you cannot on the one hand accept the Church’s view concerning abortion while on the other hand rejecting its opinion that the Iraq war, unlike those of World War II and against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, is both unjust and immoral.

Wade J. Williams

Colonel, USA (Ret)

Peachtree City, Ga.

login to post comments