Following the one-two media slam by ABC and Bush on 9/11/06, I sent this Letter to the Editor of the San Jose Mercury News:
There is a rule in sales: lead with your weakness. Bush and company are doing this full tilt. With their platform singularly being fear and the “war on terror”, they have to claim that the Iraq war has made us safer. But has it?
Which is safer? A known, isolated tyrant, or a violent “wild west” anarchy that both encourages and harbors terrorists? Which would result in a safer Middle East? Continued sanctions, embargoes and inspections, or a country embroiled in a civil war, where our troops struggle to prevent thugs, gangs and terrorist cells from committing carnage? Which would have been more effective? Which would have cost fewer hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives?
Shame on Mr. Bush for using the 9/11 tragedy to sell his policy and military mistakes as protection. Shame on us if we buy the stinking mess in Iraq as “security”.