To the editor:

Peter Brown’s shallow, lopsided analysis of the possible reasons we have not experienced another al-Qaida attack on U.S. soil (April 21, page 7B) came to his intended conclusion: The terrorists are afraid of Bush and want us to vote for Kerry. Subliminally, this labels Bush “fearless leader,” and Kerry, “wimp.”

Never mind that Kerry actually fought in the Vietnam War, his highly decorated, active service (in spite of serious reservations about America’s role in that conflict) dwarfs Bush’s cushy National Guard duty and questionable attendance record. Never mind that with his unprecedented and unnecessary pre-emptive war with Iraq, “Bring ’em on” Bush squandered every advantage we had when we first entered the war on terrorism, including: 1) American unity and focus, 2) our huge budget surplus, now a huge deficit, 3) the tremendous support and good will from the world after the horrible 9-11 attacks, 4) the great momentum and righteous cause we carried into Afghanistan, hunting down al-Qaida and Taliban supporters, 5) any hope of containing the (now) rapidly growing hatred, resolve and sheer numbers of terrorists determined to retaliate against us, and 6) the cooperation and support of traditional allies, so important, especially in times of war. Under Bush’s “leadership'” these serious mismanagement and losses have made America less safe, not more so.

Here’s an alternate hypothesis for Brown’s “analysis”: Al-Qaida wants Bush to win because he has divided this nation and created turmoil here and abroad. So, we had better be extra vigilant as our election approaches.

Sharon Dewey,

Lawrence