IF YOU KNOW ANY BUSH SUPPORTERS....... SEND THEM THIS

[ulTRAX]

All of us probably know someone who supports Bush. While it's easy to write them off as braindead, many are just ordinary Americans who are scared or believed Bush's self-serving sound bites. They MIGHT change their minds and we have NOTHING to lose by trying a personal approach. This is hopefully my last draft before I send this letter to people I know. But that's not to say it can't be reworked. I can only add that I believe the key to changing minds is to work within another's value system... then move them to reach another conclusion. Part of that must be to acknowledge that people have questions about Kerry. This letter may still be too partisan in tone.

Any and ALL votes now are crucial to Kerry's success... and no tool should go unused. Please consider this approach... and if anyone has better wording or a better letter..... please post.

=====================================================

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.

Leaving aside the question of whether 911 could have been prevented as the Chair of 911 Commission believes.... we now know that even before 911 Bush and his neo-conservatives wanted to invade Iraq. 911 provided that excuse. But what shaped their policy? Several titanic forces clashed in the Bush administration. The first were those neo-cons like Cheney and Wolfowitz. They believed in a radical new doctrine to use the military to impose a Pax Americana on the world. They were unconcerned about legalities or alienating old allies. Quite the flip-flop for Cheney who in 1991 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. It 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. Oops.

Bush spent 2002 building support for invading of Iraq, knowing it would divert resources from fighting Al Quida. It was a scare campaign of dire warnings... mushroom clouds and WMDs. With NO evidence they claimed Saddam was linked to 911. It was so often repeated that even today over 40% of Americans believe it. 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. Now al-Zarqawi leads the terrorist war in Iraq. Oops.

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 1991. 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? There were no WMDs, no connections to 911 or Al Quida, and Saddam was a toothless tiger. So much for Bush's "gathering threat". 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.

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 offering $15 Billion in aid to Turkey alone. 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?

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? Why risk the Arab world thinking the US was making an oil grab or a Christian president was on a new Holy Crusade? 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. Where it took 205 years for the US to run up the first 1700 billion in debt, Bush managed the same in less than 4 years. Politicians hide behind the 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 so he never fails to exploit 911. He glosses over the mess he's made with great sound bites like we're fighting terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here. It sounds like a plan. But none of the 911 hijackers were Iraqi... and many became jihadists in EUROPE. Bush has increased anti-American hatred and invaded a nation which did not tolerate Islamic extremists. Now Bush, himself, has unleashed it. In doing so world terrorism is way up, not down. Bush also bogged down our military... while diverting resources away hunting for Bin Laden. Forget the election sound-bites and slogans... does this REALLY sound like an effective war on terrorism?

Yes, we are in a war. We're told it's unwise to switch 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 switch. Our nation MUST have more competent leadership.

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.

If you're leaning Bush, please reconsider.

[fryguy]

1. great reading

sent it along to several people I know and asked them to forward as well.... you make simple, yet cogent point that even repubs should be able to understand. my guess, anyone who reads it - as long as they're not rabid - will have to see chimp and co. for what they are....

[oscar111]

2. 30 SHORT zingers to send bush backers:"kerry bled, bush fled.-Bush dropped

wages $1500, Clinton upped $7,000.
---Bush lost a million jobs, Clinton added 22 million.
--Bush gives tax breaks for Outsourcing {to India}.
--Bush dropped stocks 700, Clinton rose them 7,000.
-------------------
30 such zingers.. 99.999999 % of folks will not read the long original post above, no time. {but keep writing, poster. Just briefer. Excellent ideas, well said. Just long.}

Look for post "Zingers" for 25 more like these, in forum "politics and campaigns", usually near the top.

[ulTRAX]

8. trying to get in the back door

I know how I'd feel if someone sent me some anti-Kerry stuff. I'd just delete it. So my original intent was to get assume some Bush voters are rational but mislead.... and that if you can understand their fears... not that Bush peddles much hope, then that's the opening one has to change their mind. The approach is less threatening because it validates the readers view of reality before trying to alter it. I'm not sure I still wasn't too partisan.... but I tried to be fair... and at least I refrained from name calling LOL

[ulTRAX]

9. thanks.... but check out the last draft below

I think it's more concise and says a bit more about Kerry. I wish I had started this a week ago so I could better formulate all the points I wanted to make. But like many others I believe that if Bush supporters REALLY understood how insane Bush's Iraq and fiscal policies are, they'd see though the rest of his bullshit.

So feel free to edit it. Just don't give up on this back channel of communication we may all have with friends and family that might be Bush voters.

[DuaneBidoux]

3. Nobel Intentions but unfortunately...

Way to much reading for anyone who would support Shrub.

[Born Free]

4. bush voters follow blind faith

they are much like the bosh coward, they will ignore anything that doesn't meet thier myths of the bush coward. They just refuse to believ eanything else, writing and talking to them is a waste of time, far better to work with resonable people that support Kerry and make sure they get involved. We have the issues and the people we just need to get them to the polls and make sure their votes are counted.

[ulTRAX]

5. There are many types of Bush Voters

Some Bush voters are diehard RR'tards but others may simply believe Bush's spin that Kerry is a waffler and Bush will keep them safe. Some may not even think about how Bush is funding tax cuts when we're running record deficits. While we can't get though to the braindead, it's a mistake to write off those who have been duped.

I also think that Kerry has not run as good a campaign has he could. He COULD be bashing Bush on the head with the 1.7 TRILLION Bush debt.... but he doesn't. Kerry COULD be using the true Bush deficit numbers but Kerry uses the unified budget numbers of 415 rather than the better indicator: the deficit in on-budget revenues... 568 BILLION. I think even Bush voters would be pissed if they could see how much 568 Billion is... which is why since April I've been at the Kerry forum suggesting they use this approach: http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion

[ulTRAX]

6. LAST DRAFT?

This has to be the last draft, I need to mail some of these letters out tonight......



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 is 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.

Leaving aside the question of whether 911 could have been prevented as the Chair of 911 Commission believes.... we now know that even before 911 Bush and his neo-conservatives wanted to invade Iraq. 911 provided that excuse. But what shaped their policy? Several titanic forces clashed in the Bush administration. The first were those neo-cons like Cheney and Wolfowitz. They believed in a radical new doctrine to use the military to impose a Pax Americana on the world. They were unconcerned about legalities or alienating old allies. Quite the flip-flop for Cheney who in 1991 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. It 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. Oops.

Bush spent 2002 building support for invading of Iraq, knowing it would divert resources from fighting Al Quida. It was a scare campaign of dire warnings... mushroom clouds and WMDs. With NO evidence Bush insinuated Saddam was linked to 911. It was so often repeated that even today over 40% of Americans believe it. Curiously 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. Now al-Zarqawi leads the terrorist war in Iraq. Oops.

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 1991. 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? There were no WMDs, no connections to 911 or Al Quida, and Saddam was a toothless tiger. So much for Bush's "gathering threat". 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.

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 offering $15 Billion in aid to Turkey alone. 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?

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? Why risk the Arab world thinking the US was making an oil grab or a Christian president was on a new Holy Crusade? 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.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY: Once the Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility. What happened? In 2000 Bush ran on protecting the Clinton surplus to pay down the debt thus strengthen Social Security. He broke his word. Where it took 205 years for the US to run up the first 1700 billion in debt, Bush managed the same in less than 4 years. Politicians hide behind the abstract numbers. Here's how much we're talking about. In tightly packed $1 bills, Bush's debt would cover a regulation football field... 160x360'... with a skyscraper of cash nearly 1300 FEET tall. The FY04 deficit alone was 568 BILLION... not the 415 Billion often reported. 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 so he exploits 911 and spins the war. He has some great applause lines like we're fighting terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here. It sounds like a plan but is it? None of the 911 hijackers were from Iraqi... and many became radicalized as students in EUROPE not the mid-east. Bush invaded a pressure cooker of nation rife with ethnic and religious tensions. Cheney understood this when he said in 1991 "How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?" Iraq was a secular state which did not tolerate Islamic extremists. Bush diverted resources away hunting for Bin Laden, bogged down our military, unleashed unparalleled anti-American hatred. Terrorism, predictably, is way up. When you strip away the spin, does this REALLY sound like an effective war strategy? I fear Bush has made the US and the world LESS safe for perhaps decades to come.

If you're leaning Bush, please reconsider. Kerry has some warts but none of Bush's fatal flaws. Kerry's positions are sound. Not all of that has gotten though 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. Kerry's "global test" was merely a rejection of the radical Bush Doctrine and a return to our traditional foreign policy of working in good faith with allies.

In a war we're told it's unwise to switch horses in mid-stream. But if you're crossing the Mississippi and you realize your horse is blind, ya, it's time to switch. Our nation MUST have more competent leadership.

[bpilgrim]

7. APPLAUSE

excellent summary :toast:

peace

[ulTRAX]

10. FINAL FINAL DRAFT.......

If I were a better writer I wouldn't have these problems... so here's final final draft......

By now we're all sick of the campaign and I know you've probably made up your mind. But give me 5 minutes. We both know this election is 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. 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.

Leaving aside the question of whether 911 could have been prevented as the Chair of 911 Commission believes.... we now know that even before 911 Bush and his neo-conservatives wanted to invade Iraq. 911 provided that excuse. But what shaped their policy? Several titanic forces clashed in the Bush administration. The first were those neo-cons like Cheney and Wolfowitz. They believed in a radical new doctrine to use the military to impose a Pax Americana on the world. They were unconcerned about legalities or alienating old allies. It was quite the flip-flop for Cheney who in 1991 predicted any Iraq invasion would be a "quagmire". The second force was Rumsfeld who 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 which diverted resources from the hunt for Bin Laden. It 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 a US invasion. Oops.

Bush spent 2002 building support for invading of Iraq. It was a scare campaign of dire warnings... mushroom clouds and WMDs. With NO evidence Bush insinuated Saddam was linked to 911. Even today over 40% of Americans believe this falsehood. Curiously in 2002 the military had drawn up plans to attack al-Zarqawi's base in Kurdish-controlled Iraq. Bush refused three times thinking it would weaken the political support for the war. Now al-Zarqawi leads the terrorists in Iraq. Oops.

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, work with our allies, and 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?

With no UN mandate Bush pretended 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 1991 Gulf War allies other than the UK sent 300,000 troops. Bush tried to buy off nations offering $15 Billion in aid to Turkey alone. It was turned it down. Other nations were bullied to support the war or have trade deals blocked. THIS is why it was called 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 blurs the two coalitions. Why?

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 1991. 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? Iraq was the first test of the radical Bush Doctrine of preventive war.
But there were no WMDs, no connections to 911 or Al Quida, and Saddam was a toothless tiger. The "gathering threat" justification for war proved so vague it could be hijacked by the radical neo-cons. That Bin Laden got away at Tora Bora was bad enough. This Iraq diversion gave Bin Laden two more years to rebuild his terror network and hatch new plots. Now he's back. Oops.

So 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? Why risk the Arab world thinking the US was making an oil grab or a Christian president was on a new Holy Crusade? 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.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY: Once the Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility. What happened? In 2000 Bush ran on protecting the Clinton surplus to pay down the debt thus strengthen Social Security. He broke his word. Where it took 205 years for the US to run up the first 1700 billion in debt, Bush managed the same in less than 4 years. While politicians hide behind the abstract numbers, here's how much money we're talking about. In tightly packed $1 bills, Bush's debt would cover a football field... 160x360'... with a skyscraper of cash nearly 1300 FEET tall. The FY04 deficit alone was 568 BILLION... not the 415 Billion often reported. 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 some irresponsible? Remember, if We The People are in debt, ALL tax cuts are really funded with money borrowed from our children. A family of 4's average 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 so he exploits 911 and spins the war. He has some great applause lines like "we're fighting terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here". It sounds like a plan but is it? None of the 911 hijackers were Iraqis... and many became radicalized as students in EUROPE not the mid-east. Bush invaded a pressure cooker of nation rife with ethnic and religious tensions. Cheney understood this when he said in 1991 Iraq was "inherently unstable" and any invasion would be a "quagmire".
Yet Bush risked it. He diverted resources away from Bin Laden, bogged down our military, and unleashed unparalleled anti-American hatred. Terrorism, predictably, is way up. When you strip away the spin, does this REALLY sound like an effective war strategy? Or has Bush has made the US and the world LESS safe for perhaps decades to come.... not that Bush ever admits mistakes.

If you're leaning Bush, please reconsider. Kerry has some warts but none of Bush's fatal flaws. Kerry's positions are sound. Not all of that has gotten though 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. Kerry's "global test" was merely a rejection of the radical Bush Doctrine and a return to our traditional foreign policy of working in good faith with allies.

We're told it's unwise to switch horses in mid-stream. But if you're crossing the Mississippi and you realize your horse is blind, ya, it's time to switch. We all deserve more competent leadership.

[walldude]

11. While this is extremely well written,

I could send it to every Repug I know and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. They are blind and they don't want to see the truth. I once was having a "budget" argument with a guy and to prove my point sent him to the Whitehouse.gov/budgets website. His retaliation was "well some Democrat in the White House probably changed the numbers to make Bush look bad". At that point I knew there was no hope for the truly faithful. Even if Bush were caught red-handed, arrested, impeached and in jail they would still be screaming left-wing conspiracy. They think God put him in office.

[ulTRAX]

14. not all Bush voters are braindead

Given Bush's abysmal if not insane record... only the braindead are not open to some logical argument. Maybe the mass media's not the best way to present it.

The question is what makes soft Bushies tick? Is it the fear of 911? Is it Rove's painting Kerry as a flip-flopper? Is it a love of tax cuts?

If such people are already planning to vote Bush then we have nothing to lose by making a last appeal.

[NightTrain]

12. The Bush supporters I know don't have the attention span to read that.

Fucking losers. And come Tuesday night, they'll be even BIGGER fucking lowers! :kick:

[greblc]

13. It's too long.

Their attention span is short and they don't read more than a sentence or two.

[ulTRAX]

15. attention span

I'm not going to comment on the attention span of Bushies. I'd rather believe Bush's soft support are regular citizens who have been mislead and can be reasoned with. Whether this letter is up to the task... who TF knows. It's a stab in the dark. I'm hoping some real wordsmith with better psychological insights into Bushie pathology can write the definitive last appeal letter.

Is that you?

[greblc]

16. No. I understand and appreciate the attempt.

It's just my opinion that we arrived at this point because very few Americans read. It's why the right feels so threatened by M. Moore Movies.

[ulTRAX]

17. stereotypes are not helpful

I don't think we've arrived at this point because few Americans read. I think it's because 911 shocked the shit out of them. Once they always felt safe. But iconic symbols of US power and prestige were attacked. Thousands died.... on TV. Bush had to respond but he also exploited 911 for a sideshow... to invade Iraq. In doing so he's ultimately made Americans less safe. That's the crucial insight that Kerry has used... but not all those scared Bushies have gotten this message. That's why I believe that we as individuals might have a chance to sway some Bushies we know.

[greblc]

18. It's not a Stereotype it's a fact.(I read stats somewhere

but everything is arguable.)I do think talking to Bushies may sway them. I've tried to e-mail a few freeper friends and they might read a few paragraphs before they delete it. I've swayed a few friends by debating issues with them. I have had little success with text. Text is cold, it's hard to convey the emotion and urgency in an email. That's were your word smith comes in. But every effort counts.

[ulTRAX]

19. FINAL FINAL FINAL DRAFT....... honest!!!!!! ;-)

Dear XXXXX

By now we're all sick of the campaign and I know you've probably made up your mind. But give me 5 minutes. We both know this election is 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. 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.

Leaving aside the question of whether 911 could have been prevented as the Chair of 911 Commission believes.... we now know that even before 911 Bush and his neo-conservatives wanted to invade Iraq. 911 provided that excuse. But what shaped their policy? Several titanic forces clashed 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 impose a Pax Americana on the world. It was quite the flip-flop for Cheney who in 1991 predicted any Iraq invasion would be a "quagmire". The second force was Rumsfeld who 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 which diverted resources from the hunt for Bin Laden. It 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 a US invasion. Oops.

Bush spent 2002 building support for invading of Iraq. It was a scare campaign of dire warnings... mushroom clouds and WMDs. With NO evidence Bush insinuated Saddam was linked to 911. Even today over 40% of Americans believe this falsehood. Curiously in 2002 the military had drawn up plans to attack al-Zarqawi's base in Kurdish-controlled Iraq. Bush refused three times thinking it would weaken the political support for the war. Now al-Zarqawi leads the terrorists in Iraq. Oops.

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, work with our allies 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?

With no UN mandate Bush pretended he had a broad coalition. But only THREE allies provided troops for the invasion. After the UK those contributions were a paltry 2200 troops. In 1991 Gulf War allies other than the UK sent 300,000 troops. Bush tried to buy off nations offering $15 Billion in aid to Turkey alone. Other nations were bullied to support the war or have trade deals blocked. THIS is why it was called 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 blurs the two coalitions. Why?

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 1991. 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? Iraq was the first test of the radical Bush Doctrine of preventive war.
But there were no WMDs, no connections to 911 or Al Quida, and Saddam was a toothless tiger. The "gathering threat" justification for war proved so vague it could be hijacked by the radical neo-cons. That Bin Laden got away at Tora Bora was bad enough. This Iraq diversion gave Bin Laden two more years to rebuild his terror network and hatch new plots. Now he's back. Oops.

So 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? Why risk the Arab world thinking the US was making an oil grab or a Christian president was on a new Holy Crusade? 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.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY: Once the Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility. What happened? In 2000 Bush ran on protecting the Clinton surplus to pay down the debt thus strengthen Social Security. He broke his word. Where it took 205 years for the US to run up the first 1700 billion in debt, Bush managed the same in less than 4 years. While politicians hide behind the abstract numbers, here's how much money that is. In tightly packed $1 bills, Bush's debt would cover a football field... 160x360'... with a skyscraper of cash nearly 1300 FEET tall. The FY04 deficit alone was 568 BILLION... not the 415 Billion often reported. 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 some irresponsible? Remember, if We The People are in debt, ALL tax cuts are really funded with money borrowed from our children. A family of 4's average 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.

Clearly Bush can not run on his record so he exploits 911 and spins an ill-conceived war that's going badly. He has some great applause lines like "we're fighting terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here". It sounds like a plan but is it? None of the 911 hijackers were Iraqis... and many became radicalized as students in EUROPE not the mid-east. Bush invaded a pressure cooker of nation rife with ethnic and religious tensions. Cheney understood this when he said in 1991 Iraq was "inherently unstable" and any invasion would be a "quagmire". Yet Bush risked it. He diverted resources away from Bin Laden, bogged down our military, and unleashed unparalleled anti-American hatred. Terrorism, predictably, is way up. When you strip away the spin, does this REALLY sound like an effective war strategy? Or has Bush has made the US and the world LESS safe for perhaps decades to come.... not that Bush ever admits mistakes.

If you're leaning Bush, please reconsider. Kerry has some warts but none of Bush's fatal flaws. You may disagree with Kerry's on some positions but he's looking out for you, not the corporations. He's thoughtful, not reckless. Maybe you've bought into the $100 million ad campaign to distort his record. Remember that infamous 87 Billion vote. Of COURSE Kerry voted to support the troops. He just favored the bill that was fiscally responsible. Kerry's "global test" was merely a rejection of the radical Bush Doctrine and a return to our traditional foreign policy of working in good faith with allies.

We're told it's unwise to switch horses in mid-stream. But if you're crossing the Mississippi and you realize your horse is blind, ya, it's time to switch. The nation must have more competent leadership.

[Hoffnung]

20. Are you the same ulTRAX from 'webtv'?

[ulTRAX]

21. LOL

I take it we've met before? LOL alt.discuss.politics, alt.discuss.config, alt.discuss.privacy, or alt.discuss.hacking?

[Hoffnung]

26. OMG!

I just did a search for you a few weeks ago to see if you were still 'cracking' webtv its been over three years since I left webtv but I do recall the great work you did in fact I talked to you a few times but its been awhile so I don't even remember my old user name anyway this is the last place I would expect you to be its so great to talk to you again.

[ulTRAX]

28. check your mail box....

No sense catching up in this thread.

[SmokingJacket]

22. Great summary!

Many republicans wouldn't be moved an inch by this because they're bigots and stupid by choice -- but YOU'RE RIGHT, there are people who are B* supporters out of laziness, fear of change, and not wanting to spend even a second thinking about politics. My mother in law for example. She doesn't know why everyone's all het up about the election. Bush seems like a nice man when she accidently glimpses him on the TV, and well, she has a nice car and a comfy house so he can't have been doing such a bad job, could he?

I'll send this to her. Thanks.

[ulTRAX]

23. dont forget to personalize it.....

If there's any way to include some issues that might affect her, it might make the appeal more efective.

[Redleg]

24. It's too long to be read by Bush supporters.

It needs to be short and sweet or they won't take the time to read it.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

25. Yeah....unfortunately, "My Pet Goat" is about their speed these days.

[ulTRAX]

27. long? I know.... but.....

I know it's long. I wish I'd thought of such a letter weeks ago. I'd have added more issues and framed a better argument. I wish the Kerry campaign had an assortment of "personal" letters we could choose from. But at this late date it's too late.

But the intent of the letter isn't to spam people we don't know but to be a personal letter to someone we do know. That's why I asked for 5 minutes of their time. Hopefully they'll read it... even if it's 1400 words.