AN OPEN LETTER TO UNDECIDED OHIOANS

Dear Ohioans,

I am a New Yorker who works right next to the World Trade Center site and my office overlooks Ground Zero. I think this election will come down to Ohio, just as the last one came down to Florida.

Of course many of you have made up your minds about whom you will vote for on November 2nd, and I am unlikely to change your mind. But if you haven’t, may I make a suggestion? Consider the people directly in the line of fire of terrorists – New Yorkers – and who they believe will better secure their safety.

By more than a 2-to-1 margin, we think John Kerry will do a better job keeping us, and the rest of America, safe. [See http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/nyspolls/PZ040915.htm (Marist College poll indicating that 59% of New York City registered voters favor the Kerry/Edwards ticket, while 27% favor the Bush/Cheney ticket).] We are people not only concerned with security because we are in the terrorists’ gunsites, but we are people who voted for a Republican, Rudolph Giuliani, as Mayor. We WILL vote for the best man, regardless of party. This time around, a vast majority of us thinks that the best man for president is John Kerry.

Why do most of us feel we would be safer and more secure with John Kerry as president? I do not speak for all New Yorkers, as must be self-evident (but in this age of verbal assault, someone will say it if I don't, so let me start with that admission and save us from that chorus), but I have some ideas why we overwhelmingly favor John Kerry, which I think many, if not a majority of New Yorkers, would accept in great part.

Let me first say that we do not think he is perfect – he has his real and perceived weaknesses [See bottom of this letter.] But many of us believe the President’s war in Iraq, as one example, distracted the country from the war on terrorism and weakened us in several ways:

1. Unnecessarily spread out our military forces. If, God forbid, we were to suffer another terrorist strike or discovered a country really supplying terrorists with WMDs, our brave troops and reserve forces are spread far too thinly to effectively open a third military front in the war or terrorism. We have yet to fully secure Afghanistan (a justified war) and we are a long way from securing Iraq (an unjustified war). Even if we could still fight a third war, wouldn’t it be a better fight if we did not have so many forces bogged down in Iraq? Further, Iran and North Korea seem emboldened in the actions under this president, maybe because they know we can’t do anything anyway. That is weakness to the point of impotence.

2. Helped terrorists recruit new blood. The prolonged war and occupation of Iraq have fed into the recruiting efforts of terrorists around the world. The last thing we in New York City want is a growing population of young terrorists willing to die to harm us.

3. Made it more difficult to convince the world to cooperate with us. The world does not like being lied to or misled. How can we get other nations to cooperate with the war on terror with a president that thumbs his nose at the world and loses trust in their eyes? We are weaker without world cooperation.

4. High Cost – distracting funds needed to secure the Homeland. By the end of next year, the Iraq conflict will top $200 billion dollars if the President gets the money he requested. Meanwhile, airplanes fly with uninspected cargo, 95% of container ships go uninspected, our borders are porous, New York subways and train stations have virtually no protection, and the list goes on. With record deficits, we should have spent that money at home.

5. High Cost – human lives. Let’s not forget the most important cost, human life and welfare. We’ve lost over 1,000 brave soldiers, with ten times that number suffering grave wounds. Imagine, 10,000 of our best with missing limbs, blind, shattered eardrums. Does that strengthen us? Maybe, if they are fighting a country with WMDs and ties to terrorists, maybe then the price would be worth it. But Iraq was not worth it, and we feel awful for all of young people there. And let’s not forget that the Iraqi casualties, many women and children, are much higher than ours. Maybe worth the price in some places, but they had volunteered to rise up against Saddam, but unlike our Founding Fathers, they did not make that choice willingly, but had it thrust upon them.

6. Bad judgment on this war foretells bad future judgments. The President miscalculated the length and cost of the Iraq war. Exhibit One -- “Mission Accomplished.” This is probably due to the fact that, unlike John Kerry, President Bush has no experience with war. In fact most of his cabinet never fought in a war. Even Ronald Reagan understood this when he said, “History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.” No doubt, as bad as it sounds (we have to be honest with ourselves, even if we don’t like the truth), we were the aggressor here (Iraq threatened nobody), and we thought we would walk in there and clean house quickly. Ronald Reagan was RIGHT! George Bush has no concept of war or history, and these are prerequisites of good presidential judgment. Bush senior had military experience, Clinton studied international relations, Reagan had a great sense of history, Kennedy had all three, but our current president has none of these.

7. Lying about the main reason for war weakens our credibility and moral reputation. Finally, we cannot forget the cost of permitting the biggest lies to go unchecked. These are the lies that cost lives, like false accusations of murder. The President and his staff lied to us and the world about weapons of mass destruction, their MAIN reason for going to war as they stated in all their speeches on the eve of war. (Yes, later they came up with other reasons, but none of these distinguished Saddam’s regime from many others around the world.) On August 26, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney told the VFW National Convention that “there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,” and the following month, he told a group of Wyoming Republicans that there was “irrefutable evidence” that thousands of tubes made of Iraqi high-strength aluminum tubes were destined for clandestine uranium centrifuges. In his State of the Union address in January 2003, President Bush told us that “Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” And on September 8, 2002, Condoleezza Rice, the President’s national security adviser, said on CNN that the tubes were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs.” And there are dozens of other instances of the President and administration officials trying to scare us into war with Iraq by citing chemical and biological weapons, weapons that earlier this month the President’s own chief weapons inspector finally said do not exist. [http://lunaville.org/WMD/billmon.aspx] Did the President and his staff lie, or were they mistaken? In 2001, the President’s national security staff had been told by the Energy Department’s foremost nuclear experts had concluded that the tubes were most likely not for nuclear weapons at all, and Britain’s experts agreed with this. So the President and his staff knew in 2001 that what they said in 2002 was “irrefutably true,” likely wasn’t true at all; they MISLED us to scare us into going to war. This is wrong for any president to do. I could give other examples involving other types of WMDs, but this letter is long enough. (By the way, the President asserted that when Mr. Kerry voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam, he “looked at the same intelligence I looked at,” but numerous sources have confirmed that the Bush administration suppressed intelligence that might have raised doubts in Congress.) Many of us find it hard to believe that we can impeach a president for lying about sex, but that a president who lies about war that kills and injures 10,000s might get re-elected.

So what’s so great about Kerry then? Well, “great” is not the key word; “better” is -- much better:

1. He fought in war and understands the true costs of war.

2. He is analytical, will look at where the evidence leads, rather than fashioning the evidence to lead to where he wants. Thus, we stand a much better chance of avoiding the horrors of unnecessary war. In the words of John Adams, “Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war.”

3. I believe he is more honest than the present president (that is just my belief), and that is a strength that will renew our damaged credibility in the world. Just remember how the darkness of the Cold War lifted when the old, humorously dishonest leaders of the Soviet Union died off and Gorbachev came to power. Margaret Thatcher proclaimed “this is a man we can deal with.” Well, the world is waiting to proclaim that the United States has a man it can deal with.

I am sure Kerry is not the perfect candidate. But I’ve looked at the attacks against him, and many New Yorkers probably have too, and we find them exaggerated and misleading in the ways they paint him as a flip-flopper and unpatriotic (any more than the current president changes his mind from time to time).

1. Flip-flopped on the vote to authorize the war? – NO. FactCheck.org, which regularly criticizes Kerry too, stated that “Kerry has never wavered from his support for giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq, nor has he changed his position that he, as president, would not have gone to war without greater international support.” [See http://www.factcheck.org/article269.html.] Kerry stated WHEN HE VOTED to authorize war: “Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him (Saddam) by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.” (I added the bold for emphasis.) He never wavered from that. A vote is Yeah or Nay, so it does not mean you support or oppose everything in a bill or resolution. He stated the conditions of his vote, but like a parent giving the car keys to a teenager on the stated conditions that the teen not speed and drink and drive, Kerry had no say once he gave the authority. Once he handed over the keys, all he had was faith that the power he was granting would be used wisely and that the conditions would be adhered to. Bush went binge drinking and wrapped the car around a telephone poll -- not the parent's fault here (unless of course he had reason to believe the teen would do that).

2. Voted against the $87 billion emergency funds for troops. I believed this, and to be honest, I was concerned about this, but not enough to overcome all my concerns about George Bush. But then I looked into it. There were two versions the $87 billion funding bill, he voted for the first version and against the second version (as did 42 other senators). The second version, the one he voted against, passed. So the Bush machine was able to mislead us again by making us think this was a flip-flop. Kerry simply voted for a different version of the $87 billion emergency funding. [See http://www.factcheck.org/article269.html.]

3. Accused veterans of war crimes in Vietnam. I hate to say it, because I love my country, but I love it with honesty rather than false Pollyanna pretenses that we are perfect (after all, you try to improve what you love, and you can only make improvements when you admit faults) but there probably were some war crimes committed by U.S. forces, indeed atrocities were committed on both sides -- again this is a cost of war that only Kerry can appreciate (witness Abu Ghraib). BUT even if there were no atrocities, Kerry never accused anyone of atrocities. The swiftboat ad fails to state that he was testifying on behalf of Veterans, whom he thought were suffering inside and out, and he was quoting what he heard THEM say in their anguish. Let me fill in some of what the ad leaves out: "several months ago in Detroit . . . highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes . . ." and "They told the stories at times they had personally raped, . . . [etc.]" He simply told what he heard anguished Veterans confess to. Was he supposed to lie and say he didn't hear anything at the Detroit meeting? [See http://www.factcheck.org/article244.html.]

In fact, I can list numerous flip-flops of the President, but I don’t want to “attack” him generally; I just want to state a few particular issues relating to the war and security. [There’s a pithy list of such flip-flops at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/7/213753/1954, not sure all are correct, but at least with respect to security, Bush was against the Department of Homeland Security until Congress passed legislation creating it in November 2002, but then even as recently as the debates, he took credit for it; it was of course first proposed during the early part of the Bush Administration by a commission that had been set up by the Clinton Administration but had not finished its work until after Bush was installed.]

And let us not forget which candidate served his country in war.

Anyway, I hope you can see that in the area of security, not only of New York City, but the nation, that the difference between John Kerry and George Bush is stark, at least in the minds of those of us who live with the real possibility of terrorism everyday. I was not in New York on September 11th. But when my office finally reopened, I watched out my window as additional damaged and smoldering buildings were demolished. I watched out my window the many ceremonies mourning the loss of so many heroes. I heard stories of people who lost loved ones. One of my best friends lost her boyfriend that day.

I do not hesitate to invoke the tragedy of 9/11 in asking you to consider the views (and security) of the vast majority of New Yorkers when you vote. We should never forget that day, and that’s why I am reminding you of it now. But George Bush DID forget that day when he invaded a country that had nothing to do with that day or any future 9/11s. That is a grave misuse of power and of the 9/11 tragedy. There is a difference between my use of 9/11 to remind you of what we potentially face in New York and why our views are well considered, and the President's misuse of 9/11 to distract us from the war on terror to fight a personal war that had been in the planning stages from Day One of the administration. There is a difference between the presidential candidates.

Thank you for listening. Please pass this on to your fellow Ohioans, especially undecided voters.

Thank you and God Bless America! May we keep her strong AND smart, and make her more secure and more respected in the world!

Sincerely yours, A New Yorker

P.S. By the way, are we better off without Saddam Hussein in power? I think any good thing (like Saddam NOT in power) depends on the price you pay for it. Owning a nice house is a good thing, but if you paid $300,000 for a $200,000 house, you are not better off. My definition of a "mistake" is paying too high a price for something. Think about it! The house example I just gave -- mistake! Driving drunk and wrecking your car -- the benefit is you had a grand old time drinking, but the cost (even the risk of an accident) is too high, so it's a mistake. Robbing a bank -- there is a benefit, but the cost is higher -- mistake! I'll let you think about whether we got a "good deal" or it was a "mistake" spending $200 billion dollars (probably much more in coming years) that could be spent on homeland defense, sacrificing 1,000s of lives, injuring 10,000s, especially considering there was no imminent threat, and that containment was working (as it worked with the USSR and worked with Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis) and containment is cheaper than war. (Note that the recent missing weapons material that could be used to trigger nuclear explosions, but are not themselves WMDs because they are conventional, were safely guarded IN IRAQ by international inspectors for a decade, but went missing after the inspectors evacuated Iraq on the eve of war. Containment worked better than war at keeping those weapons from the bad guys. [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/international/middleeast/28bomb.html]) Given the choice between war and containment during the Cold War, would the world have been better off without Castro, without Krushchev? Those who say yes ignore the "cost" of war, in those cases, possible nuclear war. JFK understood the cost-benefit analysis of war and resisted striking Cuba during the missile crisis, despite the advice of nearly all his advisors (and we now know that some of the missiles in Cuba were ready to fire). If George Bush had been president then, I'm not sure he would have the judgment that comes from fighting in war and studying history, as JFK did, to make the correct decision. On the occasion of the Berlin Wall going up, JFK remarked, "A wall is better than a war." Something to think about.