Correspondence

I’ve been doing some of my best (in my opinion) writing the past few days. Somehow, a political email campaign got started among the members of my husband’s family (you’ve already read the wonderful contribution of his sister, Mary, which I printed a few days ago.) I’m going to put the texts of the letters I have written in response here in my journal, just because I think I’ve made several valid points, and, well, I just like the way they came out! I don’t want all that great prose to disappear into "sent mail" oblivion... In response to:
"John Kerry doesn't want war period. That is a wonderful thought, in a perfect world.. that is not our reality of today."
A perfect world? No, not yet. But we had better start looking upon that as our goal, or there may well be no world at all...

I truly fear what another four years of a George W. Bush administration would mean to this country and the world. The next regime he chooses to topple might well have more dangerous weapons at its disposal with which to punctuate its demise. Are we willing to take that chance? Apparently, President Bush is. How many thousands, perhaps millions, will die--possibly in the wink of an eye--in the next war our president starts?

Have we forgotten what the risks of twenty-first century war really are? When only the superpowers were in possession of the most deadly weapons, they performed a complicated dance to keep from using them to destroy all human life on the planet. Many of these weapons still exist, and more and more smaller nations are joining the ranks of nuclear players. Can we guarantee that a nation like North Korea, under attack by the most "powerful" country on earth, will not "push the button," because they really have nothing to lose? They may lack the technology to get their bomb all the way to the continental United States, but they could certainly lob it at someone---like South Korea. Are we willing to sacrifice millions of lives somewhere in the world, just because they are not American lives?

Or are we going to be careful only to attack nations we are certain have no nuclear capability?

John Kerry's attitude toward war was formed by war. By being the man behind the gun. By being the man in the sights of the enemy's gun. Some Viet Nam vets hate John Kerry. They have that right. They earned it the same way he earned his right to voice his opposition to the war in which they all fought. But the armchair warriors that now paint Mr. Kerry's post-Vietnam actions as cowardice and disrespect have no idea what they are talking about, and no right to pin any negative labels on him.

A man of John Kerry's experience, in my opinion, is eminently more qualified to be a "War President" than our current commander-in-chief. Simply because he believes that every alternative to war must be rigorously investigated before a chief executive dons that mantle. And, if unavoidable, then it must be worn with the utmost solemnity and sense of grave responsibility. President Bush has not demonstrated a deep understanding of what is at stake when a nation follows the path to war. He smiles, and jokes, and peeks under the table for the WMDs that haven't been found in Iraq. Not appropriate. Not funny. Not the way the "Leader of the Free World" may behave.

I don't expect to sway anyone's vote with my opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and every one must vote according to what they believe in their hearts. I simply want to remind everyone what is really at stake when we talk about war in the world today.
In response to:
"John Kerry did volunteer, only because his deferment was rejected."

Would like to know your source for this information... Seems to me that one does not sign up for a six-year hitch, then request dangerous combat duty in Viet Nam, get wounded three times, and win several medals, if one has only signed up to avoid being drafted. That just doesn't make sense.
And even if it is true that he enlisted to avoid being drafted, what difference does that make? Thousands of men of the time did the same. Would you disparage and discount the sacrifice, bravery, and commitment of all such men? Or only Mr. Kerry, because he fulfilled his commitment, then came back to this country and protested the war based on his personal experience? Again, thousands of men did the same. They earned the right to protest by virtue of what they went through in combat, in battle, face to face with the enemy. Every veteran, of any war, is forever changed by what he or she has seen and experienced. Anyone who has not lived through that same experience is not qualified to judge them.
Do you know who Carl Rove is? Do you know that one of his political credos is to "Attack an opponent's strength?" This is the garbage pile from which all this smut has been thrown at John Kerry's service record. It's political spin. Cast your vote for President Bush if you truly believe he is the leader you want to see in the White House, but don't base your decision upon the manipulation of facts---by either party.

"Comparing Vietnam to Iraq is apples and oranges.." Viet Nam War. Iraq War. It's war. People killing other people in the name of religion, race hatred, political gain, patriotism, "get-them-before-they-get-us..." The most violent of man's instincts unleashed against fellow men. All looks like apples to me.   "You state that G. W. had lied to the America people before the war but JOhnKErry stated the same things. The distortions comming from the left are out of hand just as you distort the facts in your e-mails. Sorry if this sounds nasty but I want to go on record that you can't lead a country in a war when you state time and time again that it's the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. His whole career hes been anti war and on the wrong side of the issues." Mr. Bush did lie and continues to lie to the American people about the reasons for attacking Iraq. The "excuse" we made for going to Iraq in the first place was to find WMD's. Now that it has been established that these do not exist, he presents the Iraq war to the American people as a sojourn to "stop the terrorists before they can get to our shores." Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney repeat and repeat this lie...every day, several times a day. And their carefully-assembled crowds of supporters swallow the whole bait...hook, line, and sinker.

The Bush administration tried from the outset to make attacking Iraq about hunting down terrorists, but, try as they might, they couldn't come up with a credible link between Sadaam and the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11. So they picked up the "WMD" banner, stormed across the ocean, and skewered the Iraqi people with it. In the end, President Bush and Mr. Cheney have succeeded in making the Iraq war about terrorism. Let me ask you this...most of the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attack were Saudis. Osama bin Laden is Saudi. Why have we not attacked Saudi Arabia? Because the Saudis are our "friends." With friends like that, who needs enemies? The political, economic, and societal ties between our country and the countries of the Middle East are complicated and tenuous. And they all revolve around oil. Mr. Bush had an axe to grind against Sadaam Hussein, and he used the American public's shock and horror at the 9/11 attacks to advance his own agenda. He knew that a large and loud enough portion of the electorate would jump on the bandwagon of attacking some Middle Eastern nation--it really didn't matter which one--waving their American flags and slobbering for revenge. This is inexcusable. And now---the situation in Iraq is a hideous mess. People have died, and are dying every day, because our president chose to attack a country that had nothing to do with bringing down the World Trade Center. Did you see the pictures of the new Iraqi soldiers who were butchered by insurgents? Did you hear the voice of the kidnapped humanitarian woman pleading for her life? The Bush administration bears sole responsibility for these and a thousand other horrors.

Beyond all the ugly spin--lies, distortions, call them what you will--put out by the political strategists of both parties, the only thing one can do this election is take a look at the President's performance over the past four years. If you think he has done well, as many people do, and you believe he deserves another four years, vote for him. If you believe, as many of us do, that he is beyond a doubt the worst and most dangerous president we've seen in OUR lifetimes, vote for "regime change." It's really as simple as that.