<strong><span class="subhead">DUI checkpoints save lives</span></strong></p><p>So Joe Williams was inconvenienced and irritated that the DUI checkpoint he was stopped at netted &#8220;only&#8221; 22 DUI citations. According to Mr. Williams, his time and the taxpayers&#8217; money are both being wasted.</p><p>I think a reframing of priorities is in order here. If even one of those 22 citations saved someone&#8217;s life because a drunken driver was arrested, the time and money were well worth it. And by saving someone&#8217;s life, I include the drunken drivers themselves. Sometimes an arrest can be the beginning of a life of recovery from alcoholism.</p><p>Mr. Williams, next time you&#8217;re inconvenienced by a DUI checkpoint, be grateful if no one in your life is struggling with alcoholism or drug addiction. Be even more grateful if someone you know and love hasn&#8217;t been hurt or killed by an impaired driver.</p><p><p align="right"><strong>Shelley Staib</strong></p> <p align="right"><em>Shawnee</em></p> It&#8217;s too bad that Joe Williams and his wife were &#8220;inconvenienced&#8221; by having to be part of local law enforcement doing their best to protect them from drunken drivers. The number of citations may seem small, but the message got out to every driver who passed by.</p><p>Twenty-two potential killers were taken off the road. The other citations for &#8220;miscellaneous offenses&#8221; may have brought justice to some other offenders. Remember the Son of Sam killer in New York City? He was caught by the police tracking down traffic tickets. Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was caught by an alert highway patrolman pulling him over for not having proper license plates.</p><p>And the 1,670 inconvenienced vehicles? That&#8217;s about the number of people affected by one life lost to a drunken driver.</p><p><p align="right"><strong>John E. Gacek</strong></p> <p align="right"><em>Liberty</em></p> <strong><span class="subhead">Iraq&#8217;s young victims</span></strong></p><p>I read Matt Schofield&#8217;s article &#8220;Heartbreaking image of Iraq&#8217;s young victims&#8221; (5/4, Opinion) with mixed feelings. On one hand, I mourn the loss of innocent life anywhere in the world. On the other hand, I feel a steely hatred for the forces of evil that engender this loss.</p><p>Iraq has a freely elected government that supports our presence in that country. The armed militias are against us and that freely elected government. A free, democratic country cannot exist with unelected individuals controlling armed militias that undermine the will of the people. The people of Iraq desire peace and stability.</p><p>The American people desire peace and stability in Iraq so we can leave. Armed militias stand in the way of that desire.</p><p>The U.S. is in Iraq as a result of a constitutional process. Leaving before Iraq is truly ready for self-governance would be irresponsible and not worthy of our country.</p><p><p align="right"><strong> Mark Salas</strong></p> <p align="right"><em>Leavenworth</em></p> Matt Schofield&#8217;s article was a moving testimony to what war really is.</p><p>I think that too often we forget the young, innocent victims of war. Is this war worth the cost of even one child&#8217;s life? Not in my book. And so because we are so &#8220;committed&#8221; to this war, there will continue to be more victims like 2-year-old Ali Hussein.</p><p>I wish articles like this made the front page. Maybe people would stop and think about what war really is. Thank you, Matt Schofield, for opening our eyes.</p><p><p align="right"><strong>Chrissy Nance</strong></p> <p align="right"><em>Olathe</em></p> <strong><span class="subhead">Should McCain stick with Bush?</span></strong></p><p>I fervently hope that Sen. John McCain embraces the sage advice shared in James F. Westhues&#8217; letter (5/5, &#8220;McCain should stick with Bush&#8221;).</p><p>I can think of little that would do more to help ensure that a Democrat occupies the White House come January.