I had to reply to this LTTE in my local paper today.

[Rainbowreflect]

Any input would be great.
Letter in today's paper.

We trust President Bush. Kerry in charge would be a real disaster. He may be a good speaker, but he would not lead us in the right direction.

He says he has plans, but he did not elaborate what they are.

What he did mention, President Bush and his team already have done. Kerry thinks we should have bi-lateral talks with North Korea. We are having talks with them, plus China, Japan and Russia.

Why shut out the last three? They are very important. We especially need China at the talks.

Kerry would not defend us if we were attacked. He would have to discuss it with France, etc. first.

We're getting the same spin (lies) from Kerry as we got from Clinton. Clinton did nothing after the first Trade Center bombing or the terrorist attack on the battleship USS Cole.

Do you want a President who is for abortion rights and for legalizing homosexual marriage. Kerry has made no secret of it, he is for both.

My reply

My response to Maggie Seeman's letter of October 7, 2004 is that she plays as loose with the facts as the candidate she supports.

She claims that Senator Kerry does not elaborate on his plans. Nothing could be further from the truth. Go to his web site, read the Kerry/Edwards book "Our Plan for America", listen to his speeches when the "Liberal Media" bothers to cover him.

I personally trust John Kerry and have no doubt he would defend us with out lies to push us into an unnecessary and costly war.

She claims that Clinton did nothing after the first Trade Center bombing, WRONG! Those responsible were found, tried, convicted and are serving time as opposed to Osama bin Laden.

Her last claim is less than half correct. John Kerry does support a women's right to choose for herself even though he is personally against abortion. But Senator Kerry has consistently stated he does not support homosexual marriage.

Ms. Seeman may want to try and get her facts straight, although it seem many on the right believe if they just repeat a lie often enough people will believe it's true.

[trotsky]

1. Zing!

Great response. We need to correct these uninformed freepers at every chance.

[bunkerbuster1]

5. We're learning to keep it simple enough

...for even stupid people to understand. Excellent job.

[TaleWgnDg]

2. great job, and I take particular satisfaction in your last

sentence. Well said.

. . . . . . .

[olddem43]

3. Great letter -

(correct typo - "without" should be one word, I believe)

[Rainbowreflect]

4. Thanks, you are correct.

Those are the kind of typos I often make what typing mad.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. I guess I'm harsher...I would have added one more sentence..

And Ms. Seeman, George W. Bush proved that he did not defend us when we were attacked during his presidency.

[gratuitous]

7. Let me try a little polish

Pretty good, though it might be a bit long:

My response to Maggie Seeman's letter of October 7, 2004 is that she plays as loose with the facts as the candidate she supports.

She claims that Senator Kerry does not elaborate on his plans. Nothing could be further from the truth. Go to his web site, read the Kerry/Edwards book "Our Plan for America", listen to his speeches when the "Liberal Media" bothers to cover him.

I personally trust John Kerry and have no doubt he would defend us with out lies to push us into an unnecessary and costly war.

I'd replace that last paragraph with:

First she claims that the U.S. needs a lot of foreign intervenors in dealing with North Korea. Then she claims that Bush was totally right to go it alone in Iraq. Which is it? Do we need the cooperation and input of the international community or don't we?

She claims that Clinton did nothing after the first Trade Center bombing, WRONG! Those responsible were found, tried, convicted and are serving time as opposed to Osama bin Laden.

I'd recast that to say: She claims that Clinton did nothing after the first Trade Center bombing. Perhaps she has confused Clinton's action with Bush's inaction: Clinton found the perpetrators, tried, convicted and sentenced them, and they are serving time right now. Where is Osama bin Laden? As for the attack on USS Cole, Clinton was unable to bring those terrorists to justice in the last 60 days of his term; what has George W. Bush done about them in 3½ years since?

Her last claim is less than half correct. John Kerry does support a women's right to choose for herself even though he is personally against abortion. But Senator Kerry has consistently stated he does not support homosexual marriage.

Ms. Seeman may want to try and get her facts straight, although it seem many on the right believe if they just repeat a lie often enough people will believe it's true.

I'd be tempted to leave the last point about abortion and gay marriage alone, but if you must address it:

And yes, John Kerry believes that individuals have the right to order their lives without government interference in personal decisions. George W. Bush and his support for his USA PATRIOT Act indicate that he has no similar trust in the people's judgment.

[calimary]

10. Sounds like BOTH OF YOU should answer that LTTE.

Each of you: SEND YOURS IN!!!

The more, the better.

[Tangledog]

8. I like the tone

It's always a tough balance between showing up Freeper lies for what they are and attacking Freepers personally.

One syntactical change I'd suggest:

"He would defend us without lies to push us into an unnecessary and costly war."

I'd try "He would defend us without lying and without pushing us into an unnecessary and costly war."

In the last paragraph, it's "although it seems" which I bet you'd have caught next time through. Right after that, I'd swap "believe if they just" out for "believe that if they".

Then, send it off. And thanks -- LTTErs get big ups in my book!

[Qanisqineq]

9. how about the fact that Kerry does not intend to China, et al

in the talks with S. Korea? He intends to have all those other countries AND bilateral talks. That's what I understood from what he said at the debate.