George W. Bush’s principal argument for re-election is his war

on terrorism, but in fact that’s one of the principal reasons he

should not be re-elected.

Leading up to Sept. 11, 2001, Bush downgraded his terrorism czar

to a sub-cabinet level position and ignored intelligence reports

with titles such as “bin Laden determined to attack inside United

States.” After Sept. 11, he didn’t go in for the kill at Bora Bora,

allowing bin Laden to escape. Then Bush pursued a war with a

country that had nothing to do with Sept. 11, diverting valuable

personnel and resources away from the war on terrorism and bin

Laden and, as his father’s own national security advisor said it

would, inflaming the Muslim world, creating thousands of new

terrorists. His disdain for other nation’s views, both before and

after Sept. 11, has made it more difficult to get international

support in our war on terrorism. And let’s not forget that he

opposed the creation of a Homeland Security Department for nine

months, and opposed creation of the 9/11 commission.

Simply saying that Bush “misled” us into war in Iraq – while

true – does not connect the dots on why that undermines our war on

terrorism. He has botched things up every step of the way, making

our nation less safe.

William C. Stosine

Online reader, Iowa City

Rather than discussing whether or not homosexual couples should

be banned from marriage by the federal government or given the

right to civil unions, shouldn’t we be asking just why the

government is involved at all? Who gives them the authority to tell

anyone what they can or can’t do in what should be strictly a

private matter? I contend that even heterosexual married couples

should not be getting benefits from the government, and that anyone

who wishes to get benefits from banks or insurance companies for

being married should discuss those concerns with the companies in

question, not the government.

Jared Reece

Senior English/Philosophy Major