Letters

When Credibility Becomes an Issue

"President Bush's problem is that he can't differentiate between reality and his version of reality. He is seriously out of touch. KAREL ROGERS West Olive, Mich.

President Bush keeps making promises he cannot keep [Feb. 16]. The deficit has exploded on his watch. His tax cuts have not generated new jobs to replace the millions lost in the past three years. But Bush has called for no sacrifices on the part of Americans. He wants us to go to the moon and then Mars, without new taxes. But many essential services are being cut while the federal budget deficit balloons. The Administration's neocon advisers want to build an American empire without asking citizens to support it with more revenue. The White House plans to achieve it with smoke and mirrors. The President is overdrawn. BILL MITTLEFEHLDT Anoka, Minn.

If Bush has a credibility gap, it was manufactured by the Democratic Party. If the U.S. military finds a stash of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq--and that's still possible--what would the Democrats' line of attack be then? WMD are secondary to what Saddam Hussein did to Iraq. If the Dems want to make an issue about the war, then they deserve what happens to them in the November elections. DAVID HUTCHINSON Windsor Locks, Conn.

I find it ironic and hypocritical that we are conducting investigations into the 9/11 attacks and the intelligence behind Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq, with the apparent aim of indicting the Bush Administration for, on one hand, failing to do something to prevent 9/11 and, on the other, acting against a perceived threat of WMD in Iraq. Americans can't have it both ways. Either we must be willing to undertake pre-emptive actions against governments and groups that are known to be inimical to our nation and might carry out acts of terrorism against us, or we must be willing to accept civilian casualties because we are unwilling to act against terrorists. DEAN EPPLER Houston

Bush doesn't have just a credibility gap; it's a credibility chasm bigger than the Grand Canyon. It started when Bush campaigned as a "compassionate conservative," escalated the day he claimed victory in the 2000 presidential election; rocketed off the charts as he took the oath of office and promised to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution; and has continued unabated. CHRIS FINNIE Boulder Creek, Calif.

Whether he's talking about the war, his military record or anything else, it's clear that we have a President who has a problem telling the truth. ALAN L. LIGHT Iowa City, Iowa

The president's decision to invade Iraq was based on credible intelligence. TIME seems to believe that the U.S. is omniscient and knows our enemies' every move and intention. There are terrorists who wish to destroy America and all freedom-loving people. Bush acted decisively in leading our efforts to go after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and topple a tyrannical psychopath in Iraq. America is safer today than it was three years ago, but further struggles and sacrifices lie ahead. BOB JONES Yardley, Pa.

Questions About Cheney

You asked whether Cheney is an asset or a liability to Bush's chances of re-election [Feb. 16]. The more pertinent question is, Do the people of the U.S. think Cheney would be a good President if something happened to Bush? Would they approve of Cheney, or would there be widespread discontent, much as there would have been if Richard Nixon's Vice President Spiro Agnew had taken up residence in the Oval Office? STEVEN RANDOLPH Lakeland, Fla.

In reference to Cheney and his connection with the oil-and-gas behemoth Halliburton, you quoted a presidential adviser who said, "People aren't going to care about Halliburton ... They're going to care about who can protect them." Such arrogance! Washington insiders seem to think that Americans are indifferent to the obscene amounts of money that companies like Halliburton are making in Iraq with no-bid contracts. Of course we are concerned about terrorism, but that doesn't mean we're not frustrated by seeing the Halliburtons of the country make a profit from American taxpayers. Woe to those politicians who continue to underestimate the intelligence and awareness of the 2004 voter. JANE VINSON-KAFURA Lac du Flambeau, Wis.

Service Among the Select

In "An Absence In Alabama" [Feb. 16], you discussed whether Bush skipped a year of service with the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. Let's assume he is able to demonstrate convincingly that he did attend his required training sessions in Alabama. How does this change that Bush was given special treatment and allowed to join a National Guard unit that was practically guaranteed not to go into combat? Is serving in such a unit the same as honorably serving today in a National Guard unit that is likely to see combat? DAN S. WARD Fort Collins, Colo.

Does fulfilling your duty in the National Guard automatically qualify you to be Commander in Chief? Of course not! Being an office clerk at a corporation doesn't automatically make you fit to be its CEO. There is no shortage of issues to attack Bush on. Stick to the essentials! Who cares about his service record 30 years ago? MARTIN CERVALL Stockholm

A TIME/CNN Poll revealed that 60% of voters thought John Kerry "did his duty ... during the Vietnam War." It is an insult that only 60% considered that a man who earned three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star during his months of combat in Vietnam served his country. Who are the 40% who didn't think Kerry did his duty? They probably believe that flying a desk in Alabama constituted honorable service. KEN SCHAETZLE Alexandria, Va.

Defining the Marrying Kind

In the article on gay marriage [Feb. 16], TIME wrongly implied that I was announcing a policy shift on behalf of President Bush. TIME misconstrued my comments and reported in a sensationalized analysis that the President "might favor some kind of 'contract' for gay couples--presumably a type of state recognition." The President expressed his position on this issue during his recent State of the Union address in which he defended traditional marriage, describing it as the union between one man and one woman. The President even alluded to a constitutional amendment as a way to prevent traditional marriage from being redefined by judges in state courts. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of such an amendment and believe that at the state and federal levels marriage should be a union between one man and one woman. JIM DEMINT, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 4TH DISTRICT, SOUTH CAROLINA Washington

I have seen many marriages damaged or destroyed by domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse, chronic gambling, acute poverty and untreated mental illness. The idea that my female partner and I--quietly working at our jobs, paying our taxes and living our lives--constitute a threat to the institution of American marriage is absurd. Why don't groups like Alliance for Marriage and Focus on the Family concern themselves a little more with the fact that 1 out of 3 women in this country is a victim of domestic violence? How about a constitutional amendment against breaking your spouse's jaw? Abuse is where the real threat to marriage lies. ELISABETH OCHS San Francisco

Enough about the sanctity of marriage. Look at us. People marry complete strangers on TV simply for money, pop stars wed out of boredom, divorces are tearing millions of families apart, and it is hardly uncommon to marry (and divorce!) multiple times. Call me crazy, but I would rather see two people who are deeply in love and dedicated to raising a family together be able to marry, regardless of their genders. TIMOTHY MAYNES South Burlington, Vt.

Wanting to Join the Family

Thank you for Andrew Sullivan's touching essay in favor of gay marriage [Feb. 16]. It is only human for gay couples to seek the dignity and public acceptance of this basic foundation of our society. Surely the range of personalities within gay marriages cannot be greater than in straight marriages. To deny this most important social structure to our gay friends and family members is petty and cruel. RICHARD PAUL HINKLE Santa Rosa, Calif.

Sullivan's plea for gay marriage was depressing. He needs to have a relationship validated by the state. In his argument, anyone, gay or straight, who is single or in a relationship but not married is not complete. That sounds like an attitude from the 1950s, not 2004. GREG CREAMEAN Washington

The government isn't mommy. It can't be if we are to enjoy the blessings of liberty, which include the liberty to be gay or to be a right-wing Christian. All these are possible only if the role of government is limited to its basic purpose: to execute laws that minimize interpersonal friction, maximize individual freedom and do not choose sides in religious and ideological battles. LLOYD ANDERSON Chicago