Letters

The Democratic Contenders
Edwards may be a natural politician, he may be the rising star of the Democratic Party, and he just might become Vice President of the U.S. [July 19] But now is not the time. His "two Americas" speech you quoted was masterly and moving, but it reminded me that Edwards is a trial lawyer by profession, and his words sounded as if he was talking to a courtroom jury. Edwards gives the impression of a man continually in a hurry, someone restless and not willing to be grateful for what he has already achieved. He wants much more, and he won't rest until he gets it. He wants people to elect him on faith, not experience. Anyone is better than Cheney in the No. 2 spot, but we need more than just a great smile and a dashing hairstyle.
Mark O'Neill
Würzburg, Germany

By choosing North Carolina senator John Edwards as his vice-presidential candidate, John Kerry has shown that he has the sharp judgment needed to be our President. Kerry's military experience, combined with Edwards' background as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the joint House and Senate committee investigating 9/11, is just the right mix we need to protect our land, our people and our future. Kerry has some wonderful plans to improve this nation, and Edwards has the speaking ability to get those ideas across.
Melanie A. Rush
Port Chester, New York, U.S.

I totally disagree with your portrayal of Edwards as "the Natural" choice to be Kerry's running mate. My pick for the natural person to hold high elective office is President George W. Bush. He is not afraid to lead and make tough decisions. Edwards depends on his good looks and smooth speaking for support; Bush sticks to his principles. I will always back a candidate who has true values and stands by them. That is why I will be voting for Bush again this November.
Doug Le Mahieu
Pella, Iowa, U.S.

I am extremely disillusioned by American politics, but my hopes have been resuscitated by Kerry's choice of Edwards as the vice-presidential candidate. Although I believe his selection was made for many of the wrong reasons, a man of Edwards' character, decency and competence could provide strength to a campaign characterized by a lack of imagination, conviction and direction. The selection of John Edwards as his running mate is the first truly significant step by John Kerry in his uninspired run for the presidency.
David Bagnard
Garden Valley, Idaho, U.S.

Framing the Debate
In "The President's Real Enemy" [July 19], columnist Joe Klein argued that, Kerry's candidacy aside, the true challenge Bush faces in the coming election is the war in Iraq. Bush is well aware of it. In his stump speeches, he claims that we are better off without Saddam Hussein. But if we really wanted to rid the world of deadly villains, shouldn't we have concentrated on the perpetrators of genocide in the Sudan? Or on North Korea, which is working to develop nuclear weapons?
Ed Steinhaus
Westminster, California, U.S.

Kudos to Klein for identifying the two opponents that Bush is facing in the campaign: John Kerry and reality. Kerry's reasoning on the issues is thoughtful and responsible. He actually makes sense. Pundits appropriately deride Bush for his malapropisms and simplistic sound bites, but the media rarely provide time or space for Kerry's carefully thought-out views. Please stop underestimating Americans' attention span. We can and will listen to reason when someone bothers to present it to us. In fact, we're starving for it.
Peggy Harris
St. James City, Florida, U.S.

Despots, Old and New
Michael Byers' viewpoint "Dictators In The Dock" [July 19] discussed the war-crimes trials of Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein. Just as dangerous are the leaders of Cuba and Russia. I am undecided which one is (or will be) more dangerous to humanity, Fidel Castro or Vladimir Putin. Because of Castro's advanced age, Putin is more of a long-term problem. He is capable of blocking any political development in Russia that he does not like, and his irrational behavior should be considered a threat.
Alfredo Formiga
Carcavelos, Portugal

Michael Moore's War
Michael Moore's Film Fahrenheit 9/11 is not just the politics of entertainment or the entertainment of politics [July 19]. For those who have been assimilating information and connecting the dots since George W. Bush took office, Moore simply lays it all out — the whole picture, which is something that our main media have been too gutless to do. Nothing Moore points out is a surprise. Everything he presents in this film should make an American citizen angry. Those who are shocked by Moore's documentary have not been paying attention to current events and what they are signaling loud and clear.
Liz Rose
Santa Cruz, California, U.S.

Critics are willing to apply a stricter standard to Moore's presentation of his opinions than they do to Bush's argument for his. That's exactly the reason Moore's movie is necessary. Those who desired a serious debate in the lead-up to the Iraq war waited in frustration for serious journalists to ask hard questions and apply critical scrutiny to the Administration's case. Moore's questions are the ones that should have been debated before we went into Iraq. Why should Moore's movie receive closer scrutiny than the Administration's decision to go to war?
S. Ann Robinson
Ashburn, Virginia, U.S.

Moore's movie may be a mix of fact and fiction, but anything that opens up discussion on the invasion of Iraq is good for America.
John Miranda
Oro Valley, Arizona, U.S.

Why all the silliness in response to the long-overdue anti-Republican propaganda in Fahrenheit 9/11? Fox News unabashedly spews anti-Democratic invective daily, so why the deep concern about one movie? Right-wingers dish it out with impunity, but they are certainly whining about Moore's response. The world beyond U.S. borders recognizes the transparent absurdity of this redneck posturing. At least half of all Americans undoubtedly cringe at the loss of respect and dignity the U.S. suffers on the global stage because of the embarrassingly blind arrogance of its political right. At home Moore may be a thorn in Bush's side, but around the world the filmmaker's brand of honesty redeems American credibility.
Jim Martens
Vernon, Canada

In Defense of the Fence
Your World Watch item "against the Wall" [July 19] reported that the International Court of Justice in the Hague ruled that Israel's West Bank barrier violates international law. The other side of the story is that more than 1,000 Israelis have been killed by Palestinian terrorists in the past four years. What would any society do if it had been attacked by terrorists who infiltrated its stores, pizza parlors, buses and holiday celebrations to kill women and children? Wouldn't any society want a security fence? Isn't saving innocent lives worth the inconveniences?
Randy Tischler
Raanana, Israel