NWA LETTERS

Trump’s cemetery actions send a very clear message

Rob Pflager (Letters, Sept. 11) raises an issue with the unnamed sources who stated that Mr. Trump called the soldiers interred in the cemetery in France “losers and suckers.” The fact Mr. Trump canceled the visit to the cemetery is not in controversy: he didn’t go because it was raining. We visited the cemetery in 2019, and the caretaker in charge of the beautifully maintained cemetery was disappointed at the president’s failure to appear and felt that there was no valid reason for the canceled appearance.

Actions can speak louder than words.

LINNETTE GARBER

Fayetteville

Trump, changed GOP undermine Constitution

When I was growing up in the Midwest, the Republican Party was held in high esteem. My father was a Republican and I had enormous respect for my father. So, as a young adult, my political leanings were toward the Republican Party.

Things change. The Republican Party is hardly a reflection of its former self. Today, how can it even compare with the GOP of years gone by? Yes, things change but do we as a country allow our basic values to change? Republicans and Democrats alike have always expected our leaders to lead with respect to our revered Constitution, the document that is the cornerstone of our lives in the United States of America.

The current administration has undermined the value of our Constitution, in my opinion, with a selfish disregard of its intrinsic value. We as citizens have not done our job of holding our nation’s leaders responsible for protecting us or representing us with the dignity we should deserve.

A long-time friend of mine recently said, “Our country is in decline.” As a high-ranking retired military officer, it was likely difficult for him to say that, but I believe it is true.

My question is: Which of our presidential candidates is most likely to bring back to the White House honesty, integrity, dignity and compassion?

PAUL BATSON

Fayetteville

‘Sources’ in reporting may offer false details

The media is overwhelmed, these days, with “bombshell” stories attributed to unnamed “sources.” These sources have an almost unlimited list of adjectives to describe their origin; there are unnamed sources, multiple sources, reliable sources, usually reliable sources, impeccable sources, expert sources, knowledgeable sources — the list is practically endless.

They do have at least one attribute in common, the individual or individuals cited as the “source” of the “news” are unwilling to identify themselves. Is this because they are nonexistent, or just because they cannot back up their revelations with facts? The media claim the story has been verified by “multiple” sources. Considering the vast rumor mill in the Washington, D.C., swamp, it is not at all surprising that any rumor would have multiple sources, yet this fact does not support the truthfulness of the allegation in any respect. The fact that a “source” is unwilling to identify themselves, and make themselves available to answer questions regarding their allegations, relegates their allegations to the category of “rumors,” or possibly worse, propaganda.

Our journalistic friends in the media should practice their craft in an ethical manner, and appropriately identify news items attributable to unidentified sources as potentially false information. Until then, I shall continue to view “news” stories attributed to unnamed sources as very questionable, and potentially political “hit jobs!”

JIM KING

Rogers

[email protected]

Upcoming Events