For Those Who Are Still Undecided

Madeline Salocks

When George W Bush became president, I feared that this man was in way over his head. But despite that trepidation, and even with the suspect vote count, I figured the jury was still out. However, as the disturbing facts have piled up week by week over the past 3 and a half years, my fears have been far more than confirmed. I now feel that we have an administration with no conscience. And no measure of feel-good images, upbeat promises, spin-doctoring, or smoke and mirrors can erase his record. I do agree with Dick Cheney however on just one point - this next election may be one of the most important in our nation’s history. And therefore I appeal to anyone still considering voting for Bush - please take a few minutes to consider the following questions.

How can the Bush administration’s invasion of a country that never attacked the US, and the deception of the American public to rally support ever be justified?

The deceptions began with statements linking Al Qaeda with Iraq, and with enough repetition over time, Bush succeeded in leading many to believe Iraq was involved in the 9/11attack. Then, to frighten people into believing the world was in imminent danger, Bush asserted that Iraq was rapidly producing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Of course, never mind that the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq had found nothing. Then, Bush asserted that the US must invade Iraq in order to liberate their people from Saddam Hussein. Of course, never mind other countries around the world with ruthless dictators, or those posing a real threat in terms of WMD - such as North Korea, barely on Bush’s radar. And along with these rationalizations, Bush assured that there would be a strong international coalition, and that our forces would be greeted with ‘flowers’.

The reality is that no Iraq involvement in 9/11 has ever been established. The 9/11 commission reported in June 2004 that “it found no ‘collaborative relationship’ between Iraq and Al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.” [Washington Post 6/17/04] And the reality is that no WMD (or the means to create them) have been found in Iraq. In January 2004, David Kay stepped down as leader of the weapons search in Iraq, stating that he believed there were no Iraqi stockpiles to be found [Reuters 1/23/2004]. And the reality is that the ‘coalition’ is not a true coalition - the non-US troops have been a tiny fraction of the total troops, and many have pulled out. And the reality of the Iraqi reception has been anything but flowers. The Iraq invasion and occupation have been a disastrous mess with continued warfare and no end in sight. Were plans and exit strategies at least in place? Apparently not. Even some who originally supported the Iraq invasion now recognize the incompetence of this operation. Furthermore, a lot of information has surfaced about numerous pre-invasion warnings that were provided but ignored by the Bush administration. And meanwhile, Osama Bin Laden’s name is not even mentioned by this administration anymore. How is that possible?

So Bush lied to the American people in order to recklessly wage an unjustified war. Why? Two words – oil, and domination. And for how long was this war plan in the works? The answer is most likely found in ‘The Project for the New American Century’, a neo-conservative organization that has recommended expansion of US dominance in the world - including the overthrow of Saddam Hussein - since the 1990’s. And some of its key members just happen to be Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. It is true that Saddam Hussein was known to be a ruthless dictator, but he was at least contained, and other approaches should have been used to work toward his removal.

The terrible tragedy is that this lie has now lead to the death of over 1000 troops and many thousands of Iraqi citizens. To see updates on the troop and Iraqi death tolls, see the following websites respectively: http://icasualties.org/ and http://www.iraqbodycount.net/. Polls show 4 out of 5 Iraqis oppose the U.S. occupation [Washington Post 5/13/04]. If you were an Iraqi citizen, how would you feel surrounded by continuous destruction, violence, and death? It is also not surprising that troop morale has sunk to new depths, with a suicide rate 35 percent higher than elsewhere [Newsweek 4/2/04]. If you were a soldier, how would you feel being asked to put your life on the line for a lie? In Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore tried to ask congressmen a fundamental and critical question – “Would you send your own son or daughter to fight in Iraq?”. If you are still considering voting for Bush, please ask yourself that simple question, ponder its significance, and be completely honest with yourself.

To me, the reckless rush to a war on lies constitutes more than sufficient reason to jettison Bush from the White House - regardless of anything else. But in fact, his record fails on every front. If you are still undecided, please read on.

How can the Bush administration’s response to 9/11, and the war on terror be viewed as anything but complete ineptness?

Though Bush initially sent troops to Afghanistan where Bin Laden and Al Qaeda groups were known to be hiding, he soon shifted focus away from those efforts in order to invade a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, thereby spreading our forces thin and allowing more terrorist camps to survive and even thrive. Does this sound like a focused resolve to ‘smoke out’ Al Qaeda to you? Consider too that now, with our dismal approval rating around the world, the global team effort necessary to combat terror worldwide will require far more effort and persuasion.

Then (hard to believe, but true), Bush fought the creation of the 9/11 commission. In fact, it is uncertain if the commission would ever have come into existence had it not been for pressure from family members of the 9/11 victims. Bush also opposed the creation of a cabinet agency for homeland security until Congress passed legislation creating it. Furthermore, Bush cut funds for state and local homeland security, fire departments, and first responder training, and has left airports, shipping ports, chemical plants, nuclear power plants, and other sensitive areas under-protected. Does this sound like a focused resolve to shore up holes in national security to you?

What good is accomplished with those ‘orange’ alerts? Nothing - unless you happen to count improved revenues for duct tape manufacturers as an accomplishment. The sole purpose of those alerts seems to be the generating of fear. A fearful public is a weaker public, more susceptible to suggestion and manipulation. (Also, interestingly, timelines have shown a correlation between the alerts and low points in Bush’s approval rating.)

Note that twenty six former diplomats and military commanders (some having served in key positions under Reagan and Bush senior) issued a joint statement that Bush has damaged our nation’s security and should be defeated [LA Times 6/13/04]. And not surprisingly, most Americans now say that our nation is less safe from terrorism [USA Today 6/24/04].

How do you feel about the special ties at the top of the Bush administration rife with cronyism, corruption, and corporate greed?

Are you disturbed at the long-standing personal and financial relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family with its large holdings in this country? Were you shocked at the confirmed reports that dozens of Saudis – including members of the Bin Laden family itself – were allowed to leave this country just a couple of days after 9/11? Consider that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were themselves Saudis – what does that say? Do the hurried exit and the omission of any inquiry sound like the decision of truth and justice seekers? Or, does it sound more like the decision of good old oil boys concerned only with corporate interests, the rich and powerful, and cronyism?

What about Cheney and Halliburton? Are you disturbed that Cheney, while receiving ‘deferred compensation’ from Halliburton and possessing more than 433,000 stock options in Halliburton [CNN 1/23/04], brazenly proceeds to grant no-bid contracts to Halliburton in Iraq? Could this be viewed as anything but unfair practice and a conflict of interest? And to add insult to injury, what about allegations from former Halliburton employees such as “the abandoning of an $85,000 truck because of a flat tire, paying $45 for a case of soda, and providing laundry service for a cost equivalent to $100 per 15-pound bag”? [Houston Chronicle 6/15/04] And now we learn that “Halliburton has failed to account for $1.8 billion of work in Iraq and Kuwait”. [Forbes.com 8/11/2004] Does the term war profiteering come to mind? And do you ever wonder why we don’t hear about any big reconstruction contracts going to Iraqi companies?

Does it bother you to know that former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay has been a long-time friend and backer of Bush, and that Enron executives have attended many White House events and have been contacted on many occasions regarding national energy policies – including advice on administration posts?

How about Ahmad Chalabi, insider with Pentagon officials who was considered important enough to be seated behind Laura Bush at the 2004 State of the Union? This Bush ‘freedom fighter’ buddy is now under investigation for leaking damaging military secrets to Iran.

How about the Bush administration’s lack of concern with jobs in this country?

Sadly, Bush has become the first president since Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs - over a million. So clearly, tax cuts for the rich do not stimulate jobs. (Doesn’t Bush remember that Reagan already tried that trickle-down theory and it didn’t work?) Furthermore, the Bush administration clearly does not care about keeping jobs here, blocking legislation that would offer incentives for companies to keep jobs in this country, and refusing to repeal tax loopholes that reward companies for moving jobs out of the US. And it’s not just fewer jobs. It’s also less pay. A recent survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that “almost two-thirds of displaced workers had taken another job at lower pay (30%) or remained jobless (35%)”. And “for those lucky enough to land a new full-time job, the median pay rate fell from $681 per week in their old job to $572 per week in their new job.” [www.jobwatch.org] Just recently we have learned too that Bush is trying to disallow overtime pay for many workers. If you are actually better off than 4 years ago, you are in a small privileged minority.

How about the Bush administration’s contempt for the environment?

A friend to polluters, Bush has weakened protections against toxic mercury, weakened restrictions on power plants (the largest source of US global warming pollution contributing 40% of carbon dioxide emissions), weakened enforcement of clean water laws, weakened controls on factory farms and livestock waste (thereby allowing greater contamination of rivers and groundwater), weakened controls on mining waste, and weakened safeguards for park lands.

And always a buddy to big oil, Bush has made drilling of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (established in 1960 by President Eisenhower) a top priority, despite US Geological Survey (USGS) and National Academy of Sciences reports warning that such drilling would harm wildlife and cause widespread environmental damage, USGS estimates that it would have little or no impact on oil imports, as well as the polls showing opposition by the American public. Other national treasures where Bush is pushing for energy drilling include the Alaskan coast, the California coast, the Rocky Mountains, the Padre Island National Seashore in Texas, various areas of the desert southwest including sites bordering on national parks, and more. At the same time, the Bush administration has done nothing to cut down on the country’s oil dependence, enforce fuel economy standards, or support new clean energy sources. But Bush misleads the public over and over - for example, claiming that his ‘Clear Skies Initiative’ would cut air pollution by 70% over the next 15 years, while the White House and EPA's own analysis shows that the plan will result in more pollution than if we simply enforce the existing Clean Air Act. [www.environment2004.org]

Note that four thousand scientists including 48 Nobel Prize winners – with ties to both democratic and republican administrations - have signed a statement opposing the Bush administration for “misusing, suppressing and distorting scientific advice” [AP 8/15/2004].

In the words of President Nixon, who established the Environmental Protection Agency and signed the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and the United Nations Environment Program Participation Act, “We hold the Earth its environment and its resources--in trust for future generations. We must not violate that trust”. Bush is violating the trust. And remember that assaults on the environment can be insidious – the effects are not always obvious until it is too late.

Does the Bush administration respect and support our troops?

I don’t think so. Sure, talk is cheap and Bush can easily say things like, "We're doing everything we can to protect the troops, and it's important for their loved ones to understand that." But the reality is that the troops have been spread thin, have had to serve extended tours of duty, and have been woefully under-equipped. How infuriating has it been to hear stories such as families having to raise the money to provide their soldier sons or daughters with body armor? How depressing was it to hear that the Bush 2004 budget proposed a 14% cut in funds to military family housing/medical facilities? And what about Bush’s ban on news cameras from photographing the ceremonies held when coffins of U.S. troops are removed from planes in the United States? Shouldn’t it be known to all Americans the price in lost lives that we are paying for the Bush administration’s arrogant and irresponsible military adventurism?

Does the Bush administration respect our veterans?

I don’t think so. The Bush administration has supported rescinding lifetime health benefits for World War II and Korean War veterans. [Boston Globe 12/22/2002]. The Bush administration has opposed changing the Disabled Veterans Tax that currently reduces retirement pay by disability pay, dollar for dollar, for full military career veterans. [Knight-Ridder 7/27/2003] And veteran leaders and a VA workers union have voiced strong criticism of Bush's fiscal 2005 budget plan, asserting that “the budget would only worsen the backlog in processing disability claims, reduce the number of VA nursing home beds just as the number of veterans who need long-term care is swelling, and force some veterans to pay a fee simply to gain access to the VA health care system.” [Washington Post 3/3/2004]

What about Bush’s ties to the smear campaign regarding John Kerry’s Vietnam service? A top lawyer in the Bush’s reelection campaign admitted to advising the so-called ‘Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’ [Washington Post 8/25/2004]. Large funding for the ‘Swift Boat’ group has come from Texan Bob Perry, a longtime Bush supporter. Then there was retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier, a member of the Bush-Cheney campaign veterans' steering committee who appeared in the Swift Boat fabrications. And just recently some more dots have been connected: Retired naval Rear Admiral William L. Schachte Jr, backer of the Swift Boat fabrications, has been found to be a “long-standing supporter of President Bush and a lobbyist whose client FastShip Inc. recently won a $40 million grant from the federal government.” [Washington Post 8/31/2004] How these people have the nerve to trash a decorated war hero who had the courage to serve in Viet Nam (and then the courage to speak out on how wrong that war was) is unbelievable. And Bush’s failure to condemn those lies shows him as once again the taker of the low road. If Bush were a man of integrity, and if he respected veterans, he would have immediately condemned the Swift Boat ads, just as John McCain requested.

How about the Bush administration’s disregard of health care?

Under the Bush watch, the cost of health care and health insurance has steadily risen, and the number of uninsured has skyrocketed. And when the Bush Medicare initiative made it illegal for the government to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry, prescription drug prices remained costly and the drug companies were given a green light to profit by an extra $139 billion. From the Wallstreet Journal on Bush’s Medicare Drug Plan: “Corporate lobbying groups are emerging as winners…”

In addition, the Bush administration has “overturned or blocked dozens of important workplace protections and weakened job safety programs, leaving workers in danger” [www.ufcw.org]

How about the irresponsible fiscal policies resulting in the current 422 billion dollar record deficit?

In contrast, recall that under the Clinton administration, the government balanced the budget and began running surpluses to the point where they were able to make payments on the long-term national debt. What a painful reversal we have had under Bush. “After only three years in office, President Bush may be headed to the record books as one of the biggest spending presidents." [National Journal's Congress Daily, 01/29/04] It’s a case of out of control credit card spending on a massive scale, the equivalent of looting the treasury. Would you choose these people to handle your personal finances? (If you want to see how the Bush deficit affects your particular state, see web page http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/2005budget/. And if you want to see the national debt increasing by the minute as well as the share of that debt owed by each citizen, see web page http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/.)

How about Bush’s famous education slogan turned empty promise - ‘No Child Left Behind’?

Are you concerned with the report that federal budgets have not come close to funding the amount specified by the act? In 2003, the bipartisan National Governors Association voted to label Bush's ‘No Child Left Behind’ (NCLB) Act an unfunded mandate. Funding has been $8 billion short of the levels prescribed. Furthermore, “Bush recently asked Congress to cut funding for NCLB in the 2004 federal budget by an additional $300 million. That means that the burden for implementing NCLB will ultimately fall on the cash-strapped states and localities.” [Miami Herald 11/15/2003]

It’s more difficult to go to college now too. Federal and state budget cuts have caused the largest tuition increases at public colleges and universities in a decade, and Bush has now proposed a change that would deny Pell grants to 84,000 students.

How about those tax cuts that were supposed to give everyone such a boost?

This was a major deception. According to a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, “The average after-tax income for people in the top 1 percent of income earners climbed 10.1 percent, while that of those in the middle 20 percent climbed 2.3 percent, and that of those in the bottom fifth only 1.6 percent.” [Washington Post 8/13/04] Bush’s tax cuts were not for you and me - they were for the wealthy. And they have not resulted in jobs, so can you name any other way in which they have benefited the country? I have not heard of anything. Besides, I ask – why would the wealthiest people need a tax break? Shouldn’t those who have benefited most from the opportunities our country offers give back a little more? (Note too that John Kerry has only proposed rolling back the tax rates on the rich to the level of a couple years back. Do you think people earning over 200K per year were having such a tough time back then?)

How could anyone accept the Bush administration’s disastrous human rights policies?

Take the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal - characterized by beatings, tauntings, and sexual humiliations where, according to the Red Cross, the majority of the prisoners were in fact innocent of any crime. And given the scale of these horrors, who could really be duped into believing this was just ‘a few rogue bad apples’? No, the scale is clearly indicative of an organized policy. According to a Newsweek investigation, “Bush, along with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods. This was an approach that they adopted to sidestep the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions, which protect the rights of detainees and prisoners of war” [Newsweek 5/24/2004]. Remember that the same Geneva Conventions also protect captured US soldiers. These protections cannot be safeguarded when the US itself refuses to abide by the convention.

Do you not worry that under the Bush administration, civil liberties and basic democratic principles are being eroded?

Sadly, the growing list of diminishing rights includes: detaining citizens indefinitely without access to counsel, permitting the taping of attorney-client communications, permitting the monitoring of library withdrawals and internet communications, and putting forward a plan to amend the Constitution that mandates withholding of rights from a specific group. What do you think about the Bush notion (with some help from the media) that dissent is somehow unpatriotic? Bush’s famous line ‘You’re either with us or you’re against us’, besides being indicative of simplistic thinking, implicitly promoted the notion that dissent was unpatriotic, and his remark seemed to grip and intimidate people for a long time. It is frightening to hear such an attack on one of the essential aspects of a democracy – freedom of speech and dissent.

And since we supposedly live in a democracy – where openness should rule over secrecy, it is disturbing to hear that the Bush administration has exhibited a “penchant for secrecy that has been striking to historians, legal experts and lawmakers of both parties” [NY Times 1/3/03]. For example, in late 2001, Ashcroft announced a new policy in regard to the Freedom of Information Act where federal agencies are encouraged to reject requests for documents if there is any legal basis available for the rejection, in contrast to the earlier Clinton policy of making documents available (even if a legal basis existed for rejection) as long as their release posed no danger.

Like the environmental erosions, these erosions of liberties can also be insidious. You might not notice them until you are personally affected.

Does the Bush administration reject dirty tactics?

No. Of course, lying to wage an unjustified war is as low as it gets, but there have been other kinds of dishonest tactics that are worth mentioning.

For example, take the publicizing of an undercover CIA agent, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Joseph Wilson had investigated claims that Iraq purchased materials for WMD from Niger, and had concluded in March 2002 that the claims were unfounded. But this counterindicated Bush’s aim to rush to war, so Bush evidently chose to ignore the report, proceeding in his State of the Union address the following January to insist that Iraq sought unanium in Niger. Then, in July of 2003 when Wilson made public his earlier findings, it was just a matter of days when, according to the Washington Post, “two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife." Such identification of a CIA operative is a criminal act, and can be punished with up to ten years in federal prison. The syndicated columnist who leaked the identity (and why a columnist would do this I do not understand) stated that the sources were 2 senior Bush administration officials. [Washington Post 9/28/2003] Have you heard of any heads rolling so far on that one?

And what about those single moments that can sometimes speak volumes?

There was Bush’s famous photo op where he had the audacity to appear on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, proclaiming ‘Mission Accomplished’. How ludicrous and offensive was it that this man with his questionable military service (and mysteriously lost military records) would have the nerve and bravado to make such an appearance, prancing around the ship as if he were some sort of military hero? In retrospect, given the continuing disaster in Iraq, it was more than ludicrous and offensive – it was fraudulent. Could anyone see that image and conclude that this man has a firm grip on reality and is mindful of his words and actions?

How about the April 2004 press conference where Bush was asked to cite any mistake he had made since 9/11, and all he could do was to stand there tongue-tied for an embarrassingly long time. Of course, Bush is famous for his verbal deficiencies. And truth be told, I often get the distinct impression with his awkward pauses and misspeaks that he does not even understand half of the scripts he delivers. But this was more than embarrassing – it was frightening to see that Bush has so much arrogance and so little capacity for self-examination that he could not admit to a single mistake. Could anyone view that moment and conclude that this man can think and evaluate?

Who could watch without serious doubts Bush’s famous ‘deer in the headlights’ expression as he sat for several minutes in an elementary school classroom after being advised of the 9/11 attack? Could you envision any previous president with such a look on his face at such a critical moment? And could you imagine any previous president not immediately politely excusing himself, and hastening to do his job when faced with such a crisis? Could anyone see that image and actually conclude that this man is a leader?

And here is one that was not publicized much, but struck me all the same. At a dinner/slide show for journalists, as pictures were displayed showing Bush looking around the oval office, he would joke, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere", or "Maybe under here?" An Iraq war veteran, not amused, understandably had this to say, "War is the single most serious event that a president or government can carry its people into. This cheapens the sacrifice that American soldiers and their families are dealing with every single day."[BBC News 3/26/2004] Do you think that if one of Bush’s loved ones was facing combat in Iraq, he would be as inclined to make those ‘jokes’? As John Kerry commented, this is indicative of how out of touch this president is.

Is Bush presidential?

There are many characteristics I want in a president, but some of the key traits that come to mind include honesty, courage, intelligence, curiosity about the nation and the world, the ability to handle complexity, the ability to think clearly and critically and to make sound well-informed decisions, responsiveness, the ability to communicate effectively and to speak extemporaneously, and a deep compassion and concern for every American citizen and indeed for the citizens of the world. Do you share this list? If so, where has Bush demonstrated these traits? I cannot find a single example.


You might say, “Yes, but we are in a war, and you cannot change horses in mid stream.” I say to the contrary. If a disaster course has been set, you must change horses in order to avoid being swept down the river and over the waterfall.

Or, do you simply like this president because he appears to be a regular everyday ‘folksy’ kind of guy that spends time doing things like you do? If so, I ask – is that an important criterion for a weighty and serious position of great consequence such as president of the United States?

Or, have you supported Bush because of his supposed religious leanings? If so, I ask - why should a person’s religion be a determining factor for the presidency? But even if you insist that aspect is still important to you, I ask – what have you seen in this president that shows you he lives the values of a man of faith?

Or, have you always voted Republican and you cannot see departing from the tradition? If so, I would ask you to consider whether the values of this current Republican party are really in your best interest anymore, and indeed whether its values are still in line with what was traditionally considered republican (surely you cannot say that the traditional republican value of ‘fiscal responsibility’ is demonstrated by the Bush administration). Sometimes change is not only good but crucial.

Are you one of those that say, “It’s a lost cause because the republicans and democrats are all the same.’ They are not the same. There is a huge difference in this election. Look at the facts, and do not be influenced by that myth.

Are you perhaps supporting Bush because of his stand against the much discussed issue of stem cell research? If so, I would ask you to read Ron Reagan’s eloquent speech at website http://www.doctorsandnursesforkerry.org/transcript_of_ron_reagan_at_demo.htm. But if that does not convince you, then at least think about the relative weight of that single issue against the weight of the multitude of Bush administration failures.

Or, you might say, ‘I keep hearing about John Kerry being such a flip-flopper. I want a leader with strong resolve.’ If so, realize that the ‘flip-flop’ idea has been part of an attack machine. The consummate flip-flopper is Bush, and you can see this clearly if you compare his claims against his record. A good web page with some of these comparisons is Claim vs Fact at http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=45294 .

The Bush administration has no conscience and is breaking this country. The way they have been allowed to run amuck is astonishing. How has this happened? I suppose many were asleep at the wheel (though fortunately many are now waking up). But more importantly, I think that after 9/11, many people were anxious to believe we had strong leadership, and put their complete faith in the president. In fact, when you ponder that trust and support, it is especially devastating the way Bush has let the country down.

Expect from Bush a sea of sunny optimistic assurances, platitudes, slogans, and heart-warming stories over the next couple months – the type of production you saw at the RNC. They might even sound good to you on the surface, but realize that these are scripted sound-bites. Do not give Bush a pass as he avoids discussing his record and acts as if he would be starting out fresh. When you look at Bush’s performance over the past 4 years as compared to what he said in 2000, how can you possibly trust in what he says he will do in the future? After all, wasn’t it Bush himself who said, “Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again”? (Although I believe he was actually trying to say ‘Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.’) The wisdom of this little slogan is one thing on which I agree with Bush, and it should guide us all in voting this coming November. Do not be fooled again! And who knows, as we get closer to the election, Bush might even do something that gives the appearance things are on track. But watch out for any eleventh hour last-ditch efforts. Look at his record and HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE.

John Kerry is the only candidate with a realistic chance to beat George W Bush. If you see his website at www.johnkerry.com, you will see many plans to bring the United States greater security, greater prosperity, and greater respect. Included are such things as setting a goal of 20% energy based on renewals by 2020; more investment in hydrogen research, clean coal, and efficient vehicle production; reductions in health care and prescription drug costs; a ‘school’s open till 6’ initiative with after-school programs; college tuition tax credits; increased port, border, and vulnerable target security; increased support of first defenders; a new community defense service; intelligence service reform; creation of 10 million new jobs and closure of incentives for outsourcing; support of the Fairness Act to reverse damage to civil liberties; reversal of current environment-hostile policies, and new commitments and comprehensive new policies for environmental protection; the securing of nuclear weapons and a cleanup of bomb material within 4 years; internationalization of the security and reconstruction effort in Iraq; and much much more.

And another point to remember about John Kerry that cannot be overemphasized is this – John Kerry knows first hand what it means to go to war. Bush and Cheney, in contrast, know only about escaping military service, and they seem to find it easy to put other people’s kids in harm’s way.

Kerry has offered to report for duty as president. And I don’t know about you, but I am grateful that someone with Kerry’s background, ability, and vision is willing to take on this massive mess the Bush administration has created.

Madeline Salocks
CA

###

This author can be reached at: madlinesalocks@yahoo.com