Lie: there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In Tuesday's Viewpoint, "An all too rare plea for President Bush" (Sept. 28), I found it quite disturbing that Mr. Hamilton talked about the "lies and inconsistencies" of John Kerry while never considering the current President's last four years in office. It seemed to me very hypocritical that Mr. Hamilton would be so quick to criticize Kerry's record. I will not go so far as to say that Kerry has never changed his mind, however, I would rather have a President who can change his mind for the better of our nation than one who lies and sends us to war without the help of the international community, on the basis of fictitious weapons of mass destruction.
I write this not necessarily as an advocate for John Kerry (although I am voting for him in November,) but as a response to educate voters on the "lies and inconsistencies" of President Bush.
In the 2000 election, while campaigning for President, George W. Bush said that the United States should not go around the world "and say this is the way it's gotta be." President Bush, however, seemed all too eager to go into Iraq and tell the citizens there how to live their lives. I do not disagree that democracy is the better form of government. However, on the sole basis that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, President Bush decided to go into Iraq for a "regime change."
This regime change has cost us millions upon millions of dollars that could have been better spent on education, health care, and elimination of the largest deficit this country has faced in fifty years. This war, though, has cost us something we will never be able to pay back. More than 1,000 thousand American lives lost, not to mention the hundreds of innocent civilians in Iraq. And for what? Oil? To quote the Bush of 2000 again, "If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying 'we do it this way, so should you.'" I guess he called that one.
This election year, voters need to know who and what they are voting for. If Mr. Hamilton feels that John Kerry voting for certain bills, and then later changing his view is "lunacy," maybe he should examine the bills and who really supported them. For instance, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) educational legislation that passed was one of Bush's babies. As an example of how bad this bill is, in the state of New Hampshire under NCLB, each public school gets approximately $100 from federal funds. However, it is costing New Hampshire approximately $1000 to implement this program. In a state that is in desperate need of federal help, Bush has failed us once again. I am glad that Kerry is smart enough to realize that this legislation is hurting our public schools more than helping them.
Mr. Hamilton makes many claims and harsh criticisms towards John Kerry and yet does not realize Bush's failures in the same area. To say that Kerry has accomplished little in his twenty years in office is unfair when President Bush accomplished practically nothing before his election. Besides the short stint as Governor of Texas from 1994-1998, Bush has no political accomplishments. Look where all that experience has gotten us: a war without international support (and frankly, without much of this nation's support,) a public education program that forces teachers to teach to standardized tests (thus bringing the level of a "quality" education lower than it already was,) and an economic program that has left this country so far in debt, it will take many, many years to recover. In comparison, John Kerry's twenty years in the Senate seems to be plenty of experience to be the leader of the free world.
So I guess it does not surprise me that 83 percent of Tufts students want John Kerry to be their next president. It does not surprise me that 83 percent of Tufts students have done enough research in current events to realize what kind of president George W. Bush is; and it also does not surprise me that 83 percent of Tufts students do not enjoy being lied to by the most powerful man in the world.
The 2004 presidential elections offer us two candidates who are not perfect by any stretch. Some will vote for the candidate they truly feel will do a better job. Others will vote for "the lesser of two evils." I will be voting for the candidate who is not afraid to change his mind for a better, "stronger America."
In a final, nonpartisan statement, I urge everyone to not just vote, but become educated voters. Vote Bush, vote Kerry, or vote Nader. Just make sure you know who and what you are voting for.
Scott Merrick is a sophomore majoring in Political Science
