Pages

Sunday, October 03, 2004

response to silly conservative rhetoric

this is a letter to the editor that me and my friend missy worked on tonite...we realize that it will most likely be edited down and that it could be a little more fine tuned...but we were pissed...so yay for us for doing something about it.
peace,
meghan

Letter to the Editor:
Your article brings many questions to mind about the rhetoric that was used to discredit the Democratic Party. You stated, “Democrats would rather lose the war in Iraq than the election here at home,” however it seems as though you would rather bash the democrats than give the republican’s plan as how to win the war in Iraq. Kerry and Edwards are concerned with what is going on in Iraq and that is why they want to oust Bush.

Bush and Cheney say two things: Kerry changes his mind too often; if he wins, we can be sure that “the terrorists” will attack again. First, we would rather have a leader admit when they are wrong and try to correct the course instead of stubbornly creating more damage than good. Secondly, how do Bush and Cheney know that we will be attacked again (unless they have some information they are not sharing with us)? We are tired of the Bush administration pushing their rhetoric of fear. That is exactly what your article has represented – a rhetoric of fear. You have painted a picture that the democrats are like small, na├»ve children, when in fact, that is exactly how Bush performed at the last debate. His composure, facial expressions, constant interchanging of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein with 9/11, as well as his continuous stating that John Kerry is a flip-flop – all of these things should make every U.S. citizen, regardless of political affiliation, question the Bush administration’s motives and competency.

If Bush was as strong and “compassionate” as says he is, don’t you think that there would be more “plans for the future?” Which leads us back to your article.

Why is it a problem that “a twelve-year- old [was given] a prime time speaking slot” at the DNC, when Republicans avidly support rejecting the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (www.unicef.org/crc/crc.htm)? Isn’t giving voice to our future planning for the future? We are the only country, other than Somalia, which is not recognized as a country, to not sign this document. Hell, why aren’t we allowing the rest of the world to have a voice when it comes to our foreign policy? Global AIDS has risen more during the last 4 years than in the history of AIDS because Bush signed the Global Gag Rule. This has denied access to birth control and other contraceptives (that would not only prevent unwanted children, but stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STD’s) to “underdeveloped” nations – he felt that abstinence would be the best solution.

You say “…the political party that sacrifices long-term national security for short-term political gain displays…childlike and idiotic behavior,” and to be perfectly honest, the Bush administration has done just that – not only for national security, but also for “global security.” Before you write another oversimplified article about why Republicans are better than Democrats, perhaps you should do some research into why you believe what you believe, as well as what your party has done to benefit/harm our local communities, states, the nation, and the rest of the world. Don’t politicize our national tragedy and stop this rhetoric of fear.

Peace,
Missy Hall ’05 and Meghan Karels ‘05

No comments: