President Bush's domestic policies have one primary objective: To shift as much of this country's wealth as possible to the affluent members of his own social class. Tax cuts favoring the well-off, pro-business environmental policies, and a Medicare bill largely benefiting the drug companies make perfect sense when viewed from that perspective. That millions of Americans were pushed below the poverty line, lost their jobs, or their health insurance left him cold. For this alone he should be returned to Texas.
But what makes his defeat imperative is his unprovoked attack on Iraq, condemned as illegal and unwise by the secretary general of the United Nations and most of mankind. His arrogant defiance of the U.N. would have been deplored by predecessors wiser than he, who created and supported it as mankind's best hope against future wars.
We may never know why he attacked Iraq. But we now know beyond any doubt that the reasons he cited were false, and that the consequences of his ill-advised military adventure are horrendous: About 1,100 young Americans and 15,000 Iraqis are dead, and some $200 billion of the taxpayers' money - nearly $3,000 per family - have already been squandered, with no end in sight. Yet, even now, Mr. Bush does not have the common decency to admit that his premises for getting us into the Iraqi quagmire were dead wrong.
What is truly terrifying, however, about this President's possible re-election is that this impetuous, bellicose, and error-prone person would continue to have his finger on a nuclear trigger that could launch enough missiles in a few minutes to destroy every major city on earth. We owe it to our children and grandchildren and all of mankind to entrust this awesome power to someone better equipped to handle it.
This year's presidential election will decide who will lead the war on terror for the next four years. All Americans who recognize what is at stake should join me in voting to re-elect President Bush.
After Sept. 11, President Bush demonstrated that he is willing to do what is necessary to defend this country. He and many others, including John Kerry at times, saw that Iraq constituted a threat to this country. Because President Bush took action, Iraq is no longer a threat, Libya has renounced its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and we are safer today.
Senator Kerry wants us to believe that he can be trusted as commander in chief. The positions that he has taken on the war on terror and defense issues belie that claim. During his years in the Senate, Mr. Kerry voted against almost every major weapons system while making nice with America's enemies such as Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro. He proposed a huge reduction in the budget for our intelligence services that even Ted Kennedy could not support.
A linchpin in Mr. Kerry's campaign to convince voters and media "watchdogs" to overlook his Neville Chamberlain-like record is his "I fought in Vietnam" theme. Although the media play along, the American people should not. President Bush released his complete military record, why hasn't Mr. Kerry? Did he pull political strings to convert a less than honorable discharge to honorable in 1985? We deserve an answer to this question before you trust our security to him.
It is clear from Mr. Kerry's 30-year public record that he is weak on national security and cannot be trusted to lead the war on terror. In these dangerous times, America needs a President who will forcefully defend this nation and President Bush is that man.
If someone is against abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, can that person support war and the innocent lives that are lost in conjunction with that war? Who determines what innocent life is OK to kill and that which is not?
While at war we are killing the bad guys. Collateral damage is an acceptable consequence of war. In embryonic stem-cell research, thousands of lives could be saved.
I don't understand why some people think murdering innocent people half way across the world is justifiable but using tissue from aborted embryos is not. The whole scenario seems a bit hypocritical to me.
After watching most of the recent debates between our President, George W. Bush, and the presidential candidate, John Kerry, I am more convinced than ever that we now have two parties that are deeply divided on issues of very significant importance. In fact, I'd like to coin a new title for each party. The Republican Party should now be called the "Freedom Party." It is clearly demonstrating support for this cause by its focus on maintaining a free society in the world with sane laws and regulations.
Whereas, the Democratic Party has earned the distinction of being called the "License Party" because it is unquestionably striving to create a world where moral issues no longer exist in our society. It is promoting the philosophy that if the people deem it to be good for the majority, then that is acceptable for all, regardless of any moral consequences.
Religion and politics just don't mix - period. For humanity to acquiesce to such a sad state of affairs is truly shameful, downright disgusting, and it can't lead to anything but total and eternal damnation.
Richard A. Martel
George Bush and Dick Cheney say they can keep us safer than John Kerry. How? Because they say so? Yet take away their rhetoric and all that remains are the rantings of a failed presidency. We must not allow Mr. Bush's scare tactics to be his main re-election strategy. Just because we are killing people outside of this country does not make us safer and should not make us feel better. Revenge can be a powerful motivator but should not be a reason to go to war.
The first rule of war is to know your enemy. George Bush, by concentrating all our efforts in Iraq, proved he has not learned this rule and is not the leader for America at this time.
After three debates I still have no idea how John Kerry plans on making things better in the United States. All I have heard from him is "I'm going to create more jobs for the American people," or "I'm going to make this country safe." I have heard all of these promises but I have not heard how he plans to accomplish this.
The President does not have this problem because he has a record over the past four years of how he is going to run things and whether you like it, at least you know where he stands and how he will accomplish those things most important to Americans.
I believe that John Kerry would have a better following if he just explained how he planned to accomplish the stuff he says he will. It leads me to believe that everything he is saying is just rhetoric. For now I believe that President Bush has the clearer picture for America.
Are there no depths to which the Bush campaign and its cronies will not stoop? It is inconceivable that Sinclair broadcasting would broadcast a Kerry-bashing "special" two weeks before the election. Could you imagine Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 being put on broadcast TV? Where is the FCC on this?.
Do we stay the course set by our founding fathers? Or do we create a government so big and bloated that it provides equal misery for all?
On Nov. 2, what will you vote for, fellow Americans?
Capitalism or socialism?
EDWIN F. DURIVAGE