This letter is in reply to the piece written by Eric Kleefeld, entitled \Whether dishonestly, or ignorantly, George W. Bush led the United States astray,"" which ran on Jan. 28.
Kleefeld may be entitled to his opinion about President Bush, but he is not entitled to his facts. In Thursday's article Kleefeld used numerous catchy words like ""clearly"" and ""apparent"" and ""painfully obvious"" to make his case. The sad truth is, his article lacks evidence. He is relying on the foolish notion that Bush purposely lied.
Perhaps no weapons of mass destruction have yet been found, but that does not mean they were not there before, and it does not mean there are not any now. It is difficult to find something when it is intended not to be found. Whether they exist or not, it does not change the fact that mass graves and torture chambers were found, along with further evidence of torturing (video tapes). Saddam Hussein murdered thousands of his own people. Is that not reason enough to oust him, even if that means war? If this does not justify war, what possibly could?
Kleefeld's claim that the Bush administration is a ""propaganda machine"" is ridiculous. Bush knew how evil Hussein is and chose the honorable path by removing him. Kleefeld says the administration ""had a goal of making war."" Of course they did! They knew Saddam is an evil man with evil goals and a history of evil deeds. The possibility of WMDs was one of many reasons to oust him.
The war with Iraq was not ""started under false pretenses,"" as Kleefeld claims. It was started to remove a brutal dictator from power-which we have accomplished-to give the country back to the people-which we are doing-and to prevent Saddam from carrying out further crimes against humanity-which will no longer happen.
How many Iraqi citizens had to die before somebody finally stepped up and put an end to it? Get a clue.
I am reticent to bring gambling to Madison, as I consider this city to have some wonderful resources. I realized, however, as the debate became more contentious, that gambling has come to Madison in the form of the Lotto and other state-supported gambling institutions.??Consequently, I realized the real issue is not gambling, but the rights of American Indians to own and operate businesses that make a profit, provide jobs for their tribes' people, provide opportunities denied them by Euro-Americans to reclaim their lands, their dignity, their rights to prosper and the only avenue they have to pull themselves up from the profound poverty impressed upon them by Euro-American racism.
Therefore, I intend to vote 'yes' to allow the casino to offer gambling, as my vote is a vote against unadulterated Euro-American racism. If those opposed to allowing the Ho-Chunk nation to open gambling up in Madison were truly against gambling, they would have first voiced their sentiments against the state lottery.??The opponents would have moved to undermine the laws that allow the state to provide gambling opportunities.
The opposition is openly and clearly advocating racist policies against American Indians.??A vote 'yes' on the issue is a vote in support of American Indians and their efforts to heal the ugly wounds of racism imposed on them.
A response to the Jan. 27 article titled ""Discovering the true Howard Dean"" by Bill Anderson.
To refute the four myths:
Truth #1:??Dean is not the candidate Republicans fear most.?? Why have so many Republicans contributed to his campaign? Karl Rove has publicly stated that he wants to go against Dean more than anyone else.
Truth #2:??Dean's ""early"" opposition to the war in Iraq has not been imitated by others.??Dennis Kucinich spoke out against the war long before Dean did.??In addition, even in February 2003 Dean was saying that we should give the U.N. weapons inspectors 60 more days, not that we should not ever go to war. Dean also is quoted saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Truth #3: After watching every televised debate it is apparent that Dean is not cool-tempered. In an interview after his howl he stated, ""I lead with my heart, not my head.""?? Is that the kind of rationally thinking leader we want?
Truth #4: If you heard Dennis Kucinich explain his reasons for changing his stance on abortion, you would not call it a flip-flop to pander to special interests. He has the most thought-out view on the topic and is the only one that can bring the country together on the issue.
A response to the Jan. 26 article titled ""Immigrants deserve general amnesty"" by Kate McCormack.
I am confused by the quote that Kate McCormick cites from the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, which states ""the typical immigrant and their children pays an estimated $80,000 more in taxes that [sic] they receive in local, state, and federal benefits.""??To what time frame does this figure apply-one year or a lifetime' If it refers to one year then it is clearly wrong since I am certain the average immigrant does not earn enough to pay more than $80,000 in taxes each year.
I also suspect that this quote is not applicable to the illegal immigrant question as it appears to refer to immigration in general or perhaps legal immigration specifically. ?? McCormick repeatedly conflates the debate over immigration with the debate over illegal immigration.??I agree that ""immigrants to the United States contribute far more than they consume."" However, this is only an argument in favor of immigration, not for amnesty to be granted to illegal immigrants.??It should be noted that historically, the United States has been the most immigration-friendly nation in the world.??According to Gregg Easterbrook, editor of The New Republic, we have accepted more immigrants in the past 20 years than the rest of the world combined.?? Our willingness to accept immigrants is one of the keys to our unmatched prosperity. Yet, immigrants must be assimilated through controlled, legal processes to prevent dangerous people from entering our country.??This argument for immigration controls is especially forceful after Sept. 11.??
Furthermore, McCormack asserts that the Bush ""reform,"" to use her scare quotes, will ""create a permanent underclass of low-paid workers.""?? She provides no evidence to support this claim, which may in fact be true.??However, she should enumerate the reasons that Bush's ""reform"" is nothing more than a cynical bid for votes at best and an attempt to legalize exploitation at worst. I have the feeling that McCormack is relying on Bush's connection to the proposal to be her sole evidence that the proposal is bad.
Finally, I definitely agree that we should liberalize immigration laws and work to address the flawed policy that has created a vast population of illegal immigrants.??However, the answer is??not an amnesty that would encourage the flaunting of our laws and only compound the problem of determining who is crossing our borders.
