Both Trump, Obama deserve praise

A recent letter writer seemed to make the case that Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani didn’t deserve to be killed [“Move on Soleimani not like bin Laden,” Letters, Jan. 28]. Soleimani had a hand in killing about 500 American soldiers and wounding thousands more, according to reports.

Soleimani is said to have been involved in ongoing proxy attacks on U.S. interests, the attack on our embassy in Iraq, and a rocketing campaign that killed an American.

Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama contemplated killing him, but chose not to for fear of Iran’s reaction. President Donald Trump made the call to get him.

Obama deserved praise for killing Osama bin Laden, and Trump deserves praise for killing Soleimani. Anyone seeing it differently needs to take off his or her partisan glasses.

Anthony Johnson Sr.,

Brentwood

Easing tensions one seat at a time

The political climate in our country has never been worse, and it continues to divide us as a nation. I would like to suggest one action to help us start ending the divisiveness. I suggest the seating arrangement in the U.S. Senate and in the House of Representatives be changed to no longer group each political party separately. In the first row would be a Democrat, then a Republican, then a Democrat, and so forth.

Tedd Levy,

Woodbury

Appalled at position over climate change

A recent letter writer wrote “Climate change is about money and politics . . . I don’t believe that man can change the climate” [“Don’t blame everything on climate change,” Jan. 26].

I find it appalling that, with all the scientific evidence pointing to a looming crisis caused largely by our use of fossil fuels, there are still people in denial of climate change. I’m not sure what information the writer has that flies in the face of the consensus in the scientific community, but perhaps he could share it with us.

Meanwhile, the choice is ours: We can continue to keep our heads in the sand and leave our children and grandchildren a legacy of an uninhabitable planet, or we can take action to lessen our carbon footprint before it is too late to save Earth.

Michael Golden,

Great Neck

The letter writer of “Don’t blame everything on climate change” is on the right track. Geologists know from analysis of core samples, from all over the world, that the Earth has heated and cooled, in cycles, for over hundreds of thousands of years. Long Island, and much of North America, was covered by glaciers 10,000 years ago, a mere blip on the geological timeline.

While efforts by activists such as Greta Thunberg are noble, and every person should compress their carbon footprint, shutting down the use of oil and gas is not economically realistic. Reality is that both China and India derive about three-quarters of their electricity from coal-fired power plants, and that number and their emissions are expanding. Because both countries have coal reserves estimated to last for decades, neither country has any economic incentive to alter their energy usage.

James Fitzpatrick,

Kings Park

Bolton points to strange bedfellows

Former National Security Adviser John Bolton is a hawk. Never liked by either side politically. Disliked, distrusted and feared by all against war. Comments made when he joined President Donald Trump’s team attest to that.

Now, he is the prize for Democrats? The same Democrats who hate to start wars but are skilled in keeping them? Strange bedfellows by necessity.

There are three possibilities regarding what Bolton could say about Ukraine: His accusations are wrong; he assumed Trump linked withholding aid to an investigation of Joe Biden and son Hunter, or Trump told him directly. I pick the middle possibility.

It’s not the first one since Bolton wants to sell books and he needs juicy accusations. But although it is just a book, he said he would testify.

It’s not the third one because Trump fired him.

My guess: Bolton’s testimony would be the same assumptions as everyone else’s and he would still not be a fact witness.

A man who accepts the human cost of war will have no problem lying to make some money.

Jeff Goldman,

West Babylon

SCOTUS ruling story missed the mark

The story “Court OKs Benefits Rule” [News, Jan. 28] is I am afraid another example of political subtlety.

The first paragraph implies a bias against both the Trump administration and the conservative wing of the Supreme Court. The story said, “A divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to put in place new rules that could jeopardize permanent resident status for immigrants who use food stamps, Medicaid and housing vouchers.”

That story could just as well have said, “A divided Supreme Court . . . put in place new rules that could save American taxpayers millions of dollars.” Nowhere is any mention made that this rule is consistent with the administration’s announced immigration policy to attract self-sufficient persons who will enhance our interests and economy.

Edward J. Doughty,

Blue Point