Bush as Used Car Salesman (fwd)

I don't want to insult used cars salesmen, but Bush would be brilliant in that profession. When the customer towed the lemon back to the lot, Bush would convince him, with great charm, humility and persuasive power, that he was lucky to have a car that doesn't run. Bush justifies, but doesn't learn from or correct, his mistakes. Though Kerry's not perfect, the record demonstrates his sincere Christian faith, honor, courage under fire, and common decency, facts which can be confirmed if one looks past the Republican spin to his specific acts in the past.

Chris Kohrs, San Diego, CA

335 Words of Context

There are three rules for honest reporting: context, context, context.

Take the opening paragraph of the official Kerry/Edwards position on terrorism: "There is no greater threat to America's security than the potential that terrorists could acquire chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. John Kerry and John Edwards believe that preventing terrorists from gaining access to these weapons is our number one national security priority."

Do that and you'll have terrorists sucking their thumbs.

And Mr. Bush? "I don't think you can win it," he said last summer.

In the meantime, Mr. Bush's spindoctors have discovered a New York Times article about Senator Kerry.

Context, context, context.

Here's some (con)text from that very New York Times article:

"Kerry, a former prosecutor, was suggesting that the war, if one could call it that, was, if not winnable, then at least controllable. If mobsters could be chased into the back rooms of seedy clubs, then so, too, could terrorists be sent scurrying for their lives into remote caves where they wouldn't harm us."

Or, in his own words:

"We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."

Remember Senator Kerry's words from the debate, when he said he would take the war to the terrorists, he would seek them out, he would kill them.

The only way we can do this is with a true world alliance. Senator Kerry can deliver. Mr. Bush's way has alienated powerful allies. Do you prefer Mr. Bush's never-ending, unwinnable war or would you prefer to bottle them up and try to lead a normal life?

Morton Nadler, Blacksburg, VA

Democrats Push Draft in Congress

On Tuesday October 12, Republicans in the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly against legislation that called for reinstating the draft, and the bill was soundly defeated. This was an important moment in today's political climate because both Senator John Kerry and Senator John Edwards have falsely claimed that it is Republicans, and President Bush, who support draft reinstatement.

While this vote should put the issue to rest, it is necessary to point out that it is another Democrat--South Carolina's Ernest Hollings--who has introduced similar legislation in the Senate. No Republican in Congress has introduced any draft legislation.

John Kerry is on record saying he might be open to the idea of a draft, and President Bush, in his closing statement in the first debate, made it clear that under him America's military will remain all-volunteer.

President Bush understands that the men and women who volunteered to defend America, and who serve in our military today, deserve our greatest appreciation and respect. As a candidate to be Commander-in-Chief, John Kerry should know better than to play politics with military service.

Shannon Bracken, Tumwater, WA

Disappointed?

Wait...the President "wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't [sic] weapons"* in Iraq? That's odd. Some people would be inclined to think that keeping our soldiers from being exposed to chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons in Iraq was a good thing, and that sending them on a wild goose chase for a trumped-up justification that didn't exist in the first place was the bad thing.

I know, George, it's a small distinction, but it's an important one.

(* from President Bush's comments in Second 2004 Presidential Debate, St. Louis, October 9th 2004.)

Christopher Roy, Seattle

Vaccine Shortage: Failure of the Corporate Model for Government

For years, we parroted our politicians by saying that government should be run like a corporation. Well, we got our wish with the Bush administration. Witness VP Dick Cheney's comment in the Chicago Sun Times: "The problem we have run into, producing vaccine is not a very profitable business." (Oct 19, 2004, reported by Jennifer Bundy of the AP). Dick's CEO-mentality can't see that it's government's responsibility to pick up the slack in public health. It's exactly BECAUSE it's unprofitable (but will save millions of lives in an epidemic) that government can't view the unprofitable for the ultimate public good as the undoable, except for war, apparently. War. Some people say it's The End Times. I say it's profiteering at too high a cost to look the other way or blame religious prophecy. I think voting for Kerry is our fastest way out of all our messes.

Greg Smith, Aptos, CA

Husband in Iraq

My husband is a soldier in Iraq. He spends every day there trying to liberate the Iraqis. Meanwhile, US soldiers are not allowed to freely belong to any political group of their choosing without subtle but sure harassment. Bush has created the same lack of freedoms as the very fascist regime we are supposedly trying to rescue the Iraqis from.

US soldiers have been sent there to do a job without real support from their government. Many soldiers arrived in Iraq without proper body armor. His unit had to fortify their vehicles with plywood for protection before convoying through terrorists. Bush was told by his own advisors to send more troops in the beginning, instead he ignored them and sent too few to do the job. This has left my husband and all soldiers in more danger and caused higher casualties than was necessary. Furthermore, the Rules of Engagement do not allow them to respond in a military manner to protect themselves.

It would mean a lot to me and my husband to at least have a president that actually served in a war and knew what is needed to lead. John Kerry is the only chance we have to lead our soldiers out of Iraq.

"It doesn't take a hero to order men into battle; it takes a hero to be one of those men who go into battle." --Norman Schwarzkopf

Sincerely,

Jeanne Dinehart, Auburn, WA

Support I-297

I support I-297 to enforce cleanup of existing nuclear waste at Hanford before allowing further transport of radioactive materials into Washington State.

Opponents claim I-297 would delay cleanup, resulting in more nuclear waste being left/stored at the reservation, jeopardizing federal funding for cleanup efforts, since we already have laws governing this process.

Do these laws guarantee efficient oversight and accountability?

No.

Have they prohibited dumping of hazardous waste into unlined soil trenches?

No.

Have they prevented leakage of more than 1,000,000 gallons of liquid high level nuclear waste from underground tanks into surrounding groundwater?

No.

Will they ensure responsible policies regarding treatment of incoming materials, given the history of promises made and broken repeatedly, over decades of negligent practice?

Probably, not.

Existing laws have allowed the DOE to circumvent its obligations. Now we are told that vitrification/dry storage are too expensive. Proposals to fill underground containers with grout--if enacted--would exacerbate cracking tanks resulting in further contamination leaks, requiring even more expensive cleanup procedures.

What recourse do we have other than to enact legislation to enforce an effective response?!

{Has anyone considered possible consequences of processing/storing radioactive materials in an active volcanic region?)

Sincerely,

Kathleen Allen, Seattle

The Word from Outside

I shall not beat about the bush; in a recent poll published by GlobeScan Inc. and The University of Maryland, 30 out of 35 countries outside the US clearly prefer John Kerry as your next president. How come?

There may be many reasons for this preference, one more visible than others, however:

The present war-on-terror strategy is a worry, since it upsets more than it resolves, producing more terrorists than it removes. It's as simple as this: imagine what goes through an Iraqi or Afghani teenager's mind, whose entire family just got killed by a "stray" bomb.

The hatred is the true enemy, and only by diminishing the spread and foster of these lethal and destructive feelings we might start on the path to a safer world.

There exists many ways to avoid hate, and thereby gain positive thoughts and feelings in its place. Unfortunately these strategies do not include the option of killing innocent civilians and children. Terrorism can only be fought effectively through means such as: unilateral legislation and sanctions, freezing of bank accounts, seizing of assets, arrests and imprisonment, and eventual deportations where such serve the purpose.

There is another scary thing here: signals from Al-Qaida and other terror cells indicate that they are not in favor of a shift in the US administration. The status quo serves them well.

And that's a stunner, don't you think?

All the best for your election.

Morten F. Normann, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Osama bin Laden is Right about One Thing

In his Letter to America, dated November 2002, Osama bin Laden explains his reasons for attacking America. He is wrong that violence is a legitimate response to provocation. Justice requires restraint.

Not surprisingly, he complains about Israel. We should recognize that every war is a civil war that spreads. Hitler first attacked his own people, as did Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and Saddam. When other countries get involved in somebody else's civil war, or that country attacks outside their border, that is how civil war spreads into a general war. The war on terrorism is the failure of the Mideast peace process.

Osama also complains about the vices of Americans. He complains about the sexual immorality of Clinton that went unpunished, the gambling, the sex trade, the hypocrisy, the pollution, the advertising. He even blames America for spreading AIDS. I suspect many people would find agreement with some of the social criticisms he listed.

What Osama is correct about is our economic complacency of trading with interest. For somebody to earn money without working, somebody else must be laboring without payment. Interest is a slave system. To free the slaves and end the civil wars, we must be willing to re-think how we understand money. Money has been colored dirt (gold,) tasty water (tea,) printed paper (dollars,) and electronic digits (stock portfolios.)

Love of money is the root of evil, and Interest is its seed. War is social cannibalism; Interest is financial cannibalism.

Steve Consilvio, Auburn, MA

Nethercutt's more of the same

In Wednesday's Senate debate, I distinctly heard George Nethercutt claim that in the war on terror we need to be on the offense and take the fight to the enemy. Easy for him to say. Nethercutt trots out tired, partisan "bring it on" machismo--all talk and no action. Nethercutt and a lot of Republican's simply don't get this war on terror. Bin Laden's manifesto is to kill 4 million Americans and Jews--that's not some made up number--it's bin Laden's sick, but disturbingly calculated payback for the number of Muslims killed in the crusades. His easiest road to victory and our annihilation is for al Qaeda to sneak a simple "football-sized" chunk of plutonium across the border, perhaps through our ports, and detonate a nuclear bomb. Alarmingly, two-thirds of the former Soviet Union's loose nukes are still AWOL. If bin Laden gets his hands on nukes, that's probably where he'll get them. But the White House and Republican Congress cut the Nunn-Lugar budget that grabs up those "loose nukes." Meanwhile, Senator Murray's fought for us--for the nation--to fund port security in the war on terror. Nethercutt prefers to cut anti-terror programs so he can dole out tax cuts for the rich and powerful and pre-emptive war, and he thinks port security is unimportant. Someone tell Nethercutt that good port security might have prevented 19 terrorists from getting on those planes and starting this war--at the air "port."

David Campbell, Redmond, WA