PERSONAL LETTER TO BUSH VOTERS

[ulTRAX]

I started this letter a few days ago knowing my sister and her husband are probably going to vote Bush. I was going to send them the rather lukewarm Economist endorsement of Kerry because unlike regular partisan ads, it acknowledges Kerry's weaknesses but paints Bush as having fatal flaws. This personal approach may be the only way to sway soft Bush support. The first letter dealt mostly with security issues. I've added a few more topics. Here's the most recent draft. If there are any good wordsmiths out there who can improve this letter..... feel free.

DRAFT
By now we're all sick of the campaign. But hear me out. What's 5 minutes when it comes to the future of our nation and your family? We both know this election may be the most important in our lifetime. Can we afford to make a mistake? What are the broad issues in play?

Yes, we are in a war. It seems unwise to change horses in mid-stream. But what if the horse is blind and is way over its head crossing the Mississippi?

WAR ON TERROR: Skip the sound bites. What do we know? Unless we know who the enemy is, we'll have no strategy to win this war. After 911 the enemy was obvious.... it was Bin Laden, his radical jihadists and the Taliban that sheltered them. Suddenly we're fighting Ba'athists, Sunnis, Shiites, Iraqi nationalists opposed to occupation, new Al Quida recruits, and anyone else driven by a culture of revenge. When we should have been ratcheting down tensions with Arab world, trying to ally with moderates against those few jihadists... the whole Islamic world is now inflamed. How did things go so terribly wrong? Here's the thumbnail history of the past four years.

We now know that Bush and the neo-conservatives wanted to invade Iraq before 911. 911 provided that excuse. But what shaped the policy? There were three titanic forces clashing in the Bush administration. The first were the neo-cons like Cheney and Wolfowitz. They believed in a radical new doctrine. They were not concerned about legalities or alienating old allies. They wanted to use the military to change the world. Once in 1991 Cheney predicted invading Iraq invasion would be a "quagmire". The second force was Rumsfeld. He had his own radical agenda to make the Pentagon meaner and leaner. The result was an ill-conceived Iraq war plan to be done on the cheap. That third force was Colin Powell. The war plan was in direct opposition to the long-standing Powell Doctrine: to insure there's a vital national interest, to use overwhelming force, and to have a clear exit strategy. The neo-cons also rejected Powell's Future of Iraq project. It predicted chaos after an invasion. To invade Iraq Bush pulled resources from fighting the real enemy: Bin Laden.

Bush spent 2002 building up popular support for the war... a scare campaign of dire warnings... mushroom clouds and WMDs. They repeated the falsehoods so often that even today some 41% of Americans believe Saddam was linked with 911. Bush also hid from the public that most of the 911 hijackers had links with Saudi Arabia. In 2002 the military had given Bush three opportunities to attack the base of terrorist al-Zarqawi which was in Kurdish-controlled Iraq, an area protected from Saddam by US no-fly zone. Bush refused thinking it would weaken the political support for the war.

Fall 2002: many in Congress opposed a second war when Afghanistan was not yet secure. But Bush promised Congress he wasn't a cowboy and would go the UN route to get Inspectors back into Iraq. But first he wanted Congress's backing to show Saddam the US meant business. It seemed logical. What other language did such murderous thugs understand? Bush got his war resolution and almost everything he wanted from the UN.... except a resolution giving the US permission to act alone in behalf of the UN. Why did Bush even want this language if he truly intended to work with our allies?

January 2003: Saddam had caved in to every demand and in February 2003 UN Inspectors were finding evidence that Saddam had destroyed his WMDs back in 91. None the less, Bush began the war that March ending the work of the UN Inspectors... work which we now know would have proved the war unnecessary. If that isn't a rush to war, what is?

Bush claimed he had a broad coalition. In reality only THREE allies actually provided troops for the invasion. After the UK those contributions amounted to a paltry 2200 troops. In the Gulf War allies other than the UK sent 300,000 troops. Bush tried to buy off nations like Turkey offering $15 Billion in aid. They turned it down. Other nations were bullied to support the war or Bush would block trade deals. THIS was Bush's coalition of the "coerced and bribed". Only in May 2003 after the UN recognized the US/UK as occupying powers did other nations send troops. Bush constantly tries to blur the difference between the two coalitions. Why?

So Bush rushed into an ill-conceived and poorly planned war in Iraq. There were no WMDs, no connections to 911 or Al Quida, and Saddam a toothless tiger. In doing so Bush left Bin Laden two more years to rebuild his terror network and hatch new plots. Oops.

But where there OTHER good reasons for the war such as spreading democracy in the mid east? Surely that's a laudable goal. But why resort to war? Why not start by pressuring our friends in the region to institute democratic reforms? Why risk inflaming the Arab world by attacking another Islamic nation? Why risk the Arab world thinking the US was making an oil grab? Why risk the Islamic world thinking a Christian president was on a new Holy Crusade? Why incite more anti-American hatred, thus helping Bin Laden get new recruits? Did Bush really believe his invasion would not create more anti-US hatred? Apparently. He listened to those like Chalabi, beloved by those neo-cons, but indicted as an embezzler in Jordan. Chalabi promised US troops would be greeted with flowers. Oops.

AXIS OF EVIL: Bush's policies have created a bigger mess. Before Iraq our ace in the hole was our military might. Bush played that card in Iraq and our enemies learned to trump it. Maybe Rumsfeld's doctrine of war on the cheap was to blame. Worst, the "rogue" nations like Iran and North Korea realized their best deterrent to a US invasion was to speed up WMD programs. Wasn't the Iraq invasion a warning they better stop? Oops.

In deferring to the radicals in his administration, Bush has shown appalling judgment. He's made the US and the world LESS safe for perhaps decades to come.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY: The extent of Bush's fiscal irresponsibility is also staggering. He ran on protecting the Clinton surplus to strengthen Social Security and pay down the debt. Yet from the start he broke his word... he paid nothing off on the debt but ran up over 1700 BILLION in new debt. It took 205 years for the US to run up the first 1700 billion. In tightly packed $1 bills, that would cover a football field with a skyscraper of cash nearly 1300 FEET tall. We can't even fund our own military without borrowing money from nations like China! We may like those tax cuts, but at what cost? ALL of Bush's debt is they are all funded with money borrowed from our children. So much for his promise to strengthen Social Security. Now he's promising that again?

Clearly Bush can not run on his record. So he diverts our attention. He claims we're fighting terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here. It sounds good. But does Bush seriously believe terrorists will play by his rules?

If you're thinking of voting Bush, please reconsider. Kerry has some warts but none of Bush's fatal flaws. Kerry's positions have not always seemed clear. But how much of our perceptions are because Bush spent some $100 million misrepresenting his positions? Remember that infamous 87 Billion vote. Of COURSE Kerry voted to support the troops. He just favored the bill that was fiscally responsible.

We as a nation we deserve better leadership.

[ulTRAX]

1. The clock is ticking..... my last draft....... but can you help?

The clock is ticking... and in some ways, this late date is perfect timing.

This has to be my last draft for a letter I plan to send to Bush supporters I know. But that's not to say that this idea of personal letters to Bush supporters YOU know has run its course. Such letters need to be improved... and widely distributed... and mailed in the next 2 days. Please do what you can!

BTW... much of this letter is what I HOPED Kerry would have used in his campaign.

LETTER:

By now we're all sick of the campaign. But hear me out. What's 5 minutes when it comes to the future of our nation and your family? We both know this election may be the most important in our lifetime. Can we afford to make a mistake? What are the broad issues in play?

WAR ON TERROR: Forget the sound bites about the war. Common sense tells us any war must focus on the existing enemy and not create new ones. After 911 the enemy was obvious.... it was Bin Laden, his radical jihadists and the Taliban who sheltered them. Suddenly we're fighting Ba'athists, Sunnis, Shiites, Iraqi nationalists opposed to occupation, new Al Quida recruits, and anyone else driven by Iraq's culture of revenge. When we should have ratcheted down tensions with Arab world, trying to ally with moderates against those few jihadists... the whole Islamic world is now inflamed. How did things go so terribly wrong? Here's the thumbnail history of the past four years.

We now know that before 911 Bush and his neo-conservatives wanted to invade Iraq. 911 provided that excuse. But what shaped their policy? There were several titanic forces clashing in the Bush administration. The first were the neo-cons like Cheney and Wolfowitz. They believed in a radical new doctrine. Unconcerned about legalities or alienating old allies, they wanted to use the military to impose a Pax Americana on the world. Odd, since in 1991 Cheney predicted invading Iraq invasion would be a "quagmire". The second force was Rumsfeld. He had a radical agenda to make the Pentagon meaner and leaner. The result was an ill-conceived war plan to be done on the cheap. The war plan reversed the long-standing Powell Doctrine: to insure there's a vital national interest, to use overwhelming force, and to have a clear exit strategy. The neo-cons also rejected Powell's Future of Iraq project. It predicted chaos after an invasion.

Bush spent 2002 building support for invading of Iraq, knowing it meant pulling resources from fighting the real enemy: Bin Laden. It was a scare campaign of dire warnings... mushroom clouds and WMDs. Bush said we had to stop "gathering threats". With no evidence they claimed Saddam was linked to 911. It was so often repeated that even today over 40% of Americans believe it. Bush hid from the public that most of the 911 hijackers had links with Saudi Arabia. Also in 2002 the military had drawn up plans to attack al-Zarqawi's terrorist base in Kurdish-controlled Iraq. Bush refused three times thinking it would weaken the political support for the war.

Fall 2002: many in Congress opposed a second war when Afghanistan was not yet secure. Bush promised Congress he wasn't a cowboy. He'd go the UN route to get Inspectors back into Iraq. But first he wanted Congress's backing to show Saddam the US meant business. It seemed logical. What other language did such murderous thugs understand? Bush got his war resolution and most everything he wanted from the UN.... except a resolution giving the US permission to act alone in behalf of the UN. Why did Bush even want this language if he truly intended to work with our allies?

January 2003: Saddam had caved in to every demand and in February 2003 UN Inspectors were finding evidence that Saddam had destroyed his WMDs back in 91. None the less, Bush began the war that March ending the work of the UN Inspectors... work which we now know would have proved the war unnecessary. If that isn't a "rush to war", what is?

Bush claimed he had a broad coalition. But only THREE allies actually provided troops for the invasion. After the UK those contributions were a paltry 2200 troops. In the Gulf War allies other than the UK sent 300,000 troops. Bush tried to buy off nations like Turkey offering $15 Billion in aid. They turned it down. Other nations were bullied to support the war or Bush would block trade deals. THIS is why Bush's coalition was dubbed "coerced and bribed". Only in May 2003 after the UN recognized the US/UK as occupying powers did other nations send troops. Bush constantly blurs the two coalitions. Why?

So Bush rushed into an ill-conceived and poorly planned war in Iraq. There were no WMDs, no connections to 911 or Al Quida, and Saddam was a toothless tiger. Letting Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora was bad enough. The Iraq diversion gave Bin Laden two more years to rebuild his terror network and hatch new plots. Now he's back. Oops.

But where there OTHER good reasons for the war? Surely spreading democracy was a laudable goal. But why not pressure our friends in the region to institute democratic reforms? Why rush to war? Why alienate allies? Why risk inflaming the Arab world by attacking another Islamic nation? Why risk the Arab world thinking the US was making an oil grab or a Christian president was on a new Holy Crusade? Why incite more anti-American hatred, thus helping Bin Laden get new recruits? Did Bush really believe his invasion would NOT create more anti-US hatred? Apparently. He listened to those like Ahmad Chalabi, convicted as an embezzler in Jordan but beloved by those neo-cons. Chalabi promised US troops would be greeted with flowers. Oops.

AXIS OF EVIL: Before Iraq our ace in the hole was our military might. Bush played that card in Iraq and our enemies learned to trump it. Surely the troops weren't to blame. Rumsfeld's doctrine of war on the cheap was. But, worst, the invasion made the "rogue" nations like Iran and North Korea realize their best deterrent to a US invasion was to accelerate WMD programs. Didn't Bush claim the Iraq invasion would get them to stop? Oops.

In deferring to the radicals in his administration, Bush has shown appalling judgment. I fear he's made the US and the world LESS safe for perhaps decades to come.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY: Once the Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility. What happened? In 2000 Bush ran on protecting the Clinton surplus to strengthen Social Security and pay down the debt. He broke his word. It took 205 years for the US to run up the first 1700 billion in debt. Bush managed the same in less than 4. Politicians hide behind these abstract numbers. Here's how much we're talking about. In tightly packed $1 bills, Bush's debt would cover a regulation football field with a skyscraper of cash nearly 1300 FEET tall. The FY04 deficit alone was 568 BILLION... not the 415 Billion you may have heard. We can't even fund our own military without borrowing money from nations like China! We may like those tax cuts, but at what point are they irresponsible? Remember, ALL of Bush's debt will be repaid by our children. The average family of 4's share of the debt is over $100,000. As for Social Security, Bush now claims only he can fix what he spent four years undermining. He simply has no credibility.

Clearly Bush can not run on his record. A month before 911 Bush was warned Bin Laden wanted to attack the US. Bush then spent three years hiding that fact while exploiting his 911 popularity. How cynical. He substitutes great sound bites for success. So we're fighting terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here. Sounds great! But many of the 911 hijackers did NOT become jihadists in the mid-east but as students in Europe! Since Iraq greatly increased anti-American hostility, what is Bush's plan to nip this in the bud when he alienated so many allies? Oops. Not that Bush ever admits mistakes.

Yes, we are in a war. We're told it's unwise to change horses in mid-stream. But what if while crossing the Mississippi you realize your horse is blind and is in way over its head? Ya, it's time to jump.

Kerry has some warts but none of Bush's fatal flaws. Kerry's positions have not always seemed clear. But how much of our perceptions are because Bush spent some $100 million misrepresenting his positions? Remember that infamous 87 Billion vote. Of COURSE Kerry voted to support the troops. He just favored the bill that was fiscally responsible.

We as a nation we deserve better leadership.