Letters

(3 of 4)

Either the Bush Administration used sketchy intelligence from a source who could benefit enormously from an Iraq without Saddam to justify sending America to war, or the Administration was too stupid to realize that Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress might have ulterior motives. Neither scenario makes me feel better about Bush's ability to lead our military and our country. The President did not care how he got us into Iraq as long as we went in. Chalabi gave Bush the perfect justification with his false intelligence about WMD. Bush and his buddies got their way, and we are left with a rising death toll, an astronomical deficit and an even more dangerous Middle East.
KRYSTA FILIACI
Louisville, Ky.

Unconventional Ideas

Your item "Hold The Acceptance Speech?" explained how John Kerry might delay accepting the Democratic Convention's nomination for five weeks in order to raise more campaign funds [May 31]. I am glad he ultimately rejected the idea. I remember fondly the suspense and excitement of conventions decades ago in which the presidential candidates were truly selected. I have a plan to restore some degree of drama to what has become a meaningless exercise. A person nominated for President would not follow the current custom of naming the vice-presidential candidate before the convention. Instead, the candidate would present delegates with a short list of three potential running mates and let the party members hash out who should be chosen through the democratic process.
RICHARD JACOBI
Belton, Texas

He's Baaack!

Ralph Nader should be lauded for his unwavering resolve to reform what he sees as a plagued and corrupt political system [May 31]. Although supporters of John Kerry have the right to assume that Nader "spoiled" the 2000 election, the state chairman of Arizona's Democratic Party is absurd when he says the 2004 election is only "about George Bush and John Kerry." To deny Nader, who is running as an independent candidate, a place on the ballot is dangerous to the electoral system. Furthermore, voters who support Nader should resist claims that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Instead, they should focus on Nader's government-reform movement, which, without proper support in the 2004 election, would come to a firm halt.
BRIAN MAHONEY
Cranford, N.J.

Nader has apparently picked up some political pointers from Bush, the man who insists on "staying the course" despite mounting evidence contradicting the wisdom of his agenda. Nader, despite polls that show he is drawing more votes from Kerry than from Bush, insists he wants to oust the President. With friends like Nader, the progressive movement doesn't need enemies.
RANDY POPLOCK
Seattle

I thought democracy was about the people choosing their government, not about Democratic and Republican party chairmen forcing us to pick between the two people they support. Although I would much rather see a Democrat in office than Bush again, I refuse to continue to vote for the lesser of two evils. My vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush. It is a vote for Nader, and I hope it will shake up the hegemonic two-party electoral system so in the future voters will have a real choice.
ELIZABETH DAWN CREACH
Beaverton, Ore.