Reasoned opinion

To the editor:

Contrary to the Saturday Column of Dec. 24, people like me oppose George Bush not from unreasoned hatred but from reasoned disagreement with his policies.

There is plenty to disagree with. His tax policy vastly widened the income gap between the rich and the rest of us. Our grandchildren’s children will be paying off his deficits. He has set foxes to guard the henhouses at regulatory agencies like the Federal Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. Only stockbrokers will benefit from the “privatization” of Social Security. The Medicare pharmaceutical bill is impossibly complex and costly and bans negotiating to buy pharmaceuticals at reduced prices. (Its author has resigned from Congress to work for the pharmaceutical industry at $2 million per year.)

The Bush administration rejected international agreements on land mines and global warming, disavowed the International Court of Justice, withdrew from the Strategic Arms Limitation agreement, and proposes to develop a tactical nuclear weapon called the “bunker buster.” After 9-11, we mounted a pre-emptive attack on Iraq, although it was neither in collusion with al-Qaida nor developing weapons of mass destruction. We belittled those who refused to support our invasion. We sent our army to war without proper equipment. We had no plan for governing postwar Iraq; now, we are bogged down in a quagmire of terrorism. Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden, still at large after more than three years, makes videotapes urging stepped-up attacks on us.

In short, opposition to the president results from disagreement over fundamental values, not unreasoned hatred.

Walter H. Crockett,

Lawrence