Letters

Nader supporters will undo Nader's legacy

Thanks to Paul Fayle ("Nader Supporter Wants You Off His Back," Letters, Oct. 21) for clarifying the difference between a Ralph Nader supporter and a John Kerry supporter.

A Ralph Nader supporter does not care if George Bush is re-elected and appoints a Supreme Court that will undo everything Ralph Nader has fought for all his life.

A John Kerry supporter does care.

--Steven Nelson,

Boulder City

Fix voting system by simplifying it

New voting rules:

1. Only need a picture I.D.

2. Only need a Social Security card.

3. Can vote in any city, county, state. We are U.S. citizens, right?

4. Abolish the electoral count.

5. Don't vote for anybody who takes special interest or corporate donations.

Let's make this happen before 2008 so we can experience "for the people and by the people" officials.

--Ken Reimer,

Henderson

Bush doctrine subverts American principles

As America gets more bogged down in Iraq, the world can more fully appreciate the benefits of the Bush Doctrine. This doctrine came about in response to new threats of international terrorism and proposes to make the world a better and safer place by attacking countries before they get a chance to attack us.

This is a theory long established in towns like Paterson, where I grew up, in which police officers shot black kids who drew combs from their pockets.

The fact that--as in Iraq--we might mistakenly believe a country has weapons of mass destruction is less important than our safety, and we can shed all responsibility for living up to the dictates of our own justice system (innocent until proven guilty) long enough to remove any and all competition in the world for limited natural resources such as oil.

Of course, those geniuses who helped develop this remarkably sane plan for world destruction blame the enemy for our change of policy--after all, one Bush supporter told me the rules changed on Sept. 11. Does this mean we abandoned our principles and our Constitution?

--Al Sullivan,

Jersey City, N.J.

Kerry would leave West Coast vulnerable

Sen. John Kerry said he would eliminate the bunker-busting nuclear weapon.

He also said intelligence reports state that North Korea has four to six nuclear weapons. When you testify to Congress in measured tones, what you say doesn't always get the attention it deserves.

That's the lesson from Robert Walpole's March 11 testimony before a Senate subcommittee. Walpole is the national intelligence officer for strategic and nuclear programs for the CIA and was there to update senators on the National Intelligence Estimate. He calmly delivered the following blockbuster: "The Intelligence community judged in the mid-1990s that North Korea had produced one, possibly two nuclear weapons."

That means North Korea may already be a nuclear weapon state. This is news. Just last Sunday, the Washington Post reported, "North Korea may have enough fissile material for one or two nuclear weapons, U.S. analysts say." But this conventional wisdom appears to be outdated.

Also according to Walpole, the North Korean "multiple-stage Taepo Dong-2, which is capable of reaching the United States with a nuclear-weapon-sized payload, may be ready for flight testing."

Feeling secure yet? Since California, Washington and Oregon are in range of North Korean missiles, Sen. Kerry would allow L.A., San Fransico, Portand, Oregon and Seattle to be wiped out by a nuclear attack. The best weapon to take out those missile silos is the bunker-busting nuclear weapon. Once again, Kerry shows that he wants to disarm America and make us more vulnerable to attack.

--Charles Massimini.

Albertville, Ala.