Question: I don’t know where this name “insurgents” came from. The real name is terrorists and or enemy. The only reason they might be known as “insurgents” is that many of them are not native Iraqis.

Why do you buy into the liberal swill and call them the “I” word? We are at war and we need the decency to support our troops and their commander in chief so that we can get on with the battle and win the war and bring them home soon. If we continue to play games, the war could come out like Vietnam.

At least we are not spitting on the heroes and calling them baby killers like one of the Vietnam War heroes who ran for president did. — E.R. Stuhlmiller, Reardan

Answer: Here’s the dictionary definition of insurgent: “rising up against established authority; rebellious; specifically: a revolt or rebellion not well enough organized to be recognized in international law as belligerency; or a faction in revolt against the leadership of a political party.”

The term “insurgents” was applied by the U.S. military to describe fighting forces opposed to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. The term is used by the present administration, by the Pentagon and by the press.

Insofar as the insurgency has a specific political goal and is limited to Iraq, it has to be viewed as something more and different from terrorism.

The writer’s issues are political, not semantic. — Steve Smith, editor

Food-for-oil stories on Page 1?

Question: The food-for-oil debacle seems to be evolving into a defining issue in world politics. Curiously, this story appears to be getting buried by the media and the S-R as well. So far stories about this topic have made pages 3 or 4 at best. Given the recent diatribe(s) against our president and the Iraq war, wouldn’t your readership be better served if the S-R were to emphasize interest in this story with front page placement? — Dave Tolle

Answer: Our Page 1 has room for five or six news stories every day (fewer on Sunday) and generally three of those will be local. The food-for-oil reports, which confirmed earlier stories, found space in the paper but did not compete for Page 1 because there were other stories we believed were more important at that moment. Page 1 decisions are judgment calls, always open to argument. — Steve Smith, editor

Why no story on Kerry recount?

Question: Why have I not seen coverage of this story in the S-R? “Kerry clutches to hopes of recount victory.”

Answer: We’ve had at least two stories on the Ohio recount, both relatively small stories noting the accusations of fraud.

Of course, we’ll report on any recount that actually occurs and on the results.

Despite the widespread Internet chat, there is no credible evidence from any reliable source to indicate meaningful fraud in Ohio or any other state. Kerry’s staff in Ohio has said it has no evidence of fraud. Trust me, evidence of such fraud would be huge news and reporters would pounce on it. A story that appeared on the wires this week noted that the Miami Herald effectively debunked fraud reports out of three key north Florida counties that were expected to go for Kerry but actually supported Bush.

Citizens may choose to support the president or not, embrace him or not. But I suspect there will come a time when the election results, in and of themselves, will be accepted by most Americans. — Steve Smith, editor