Re "Dean's Draft History Draws Critics," Nov. 23: There they go again, trying to say that presidential candidate Howard Dean is somehow less qualified to beat George W. Bush because the former governor of Vermont did not serve in the military. And they imply that his draft status is somehow less than honorable.
Dean reported when called for the draft, was examined and was rejected because of his back. What more can we ask? I find it absurd to believe that Dean's prescription for curing the country of the ills caused by Bush is made any less effective by his not having served in a war.
That Bush essentially went AWOL for an entire year from the Air National Guard surely should be mentioned in an article comparing the relative electability of Democratic candidates' war records.
Re "Bush Campaign Chief Calls Democrats Weak on Security," Nov. 23: It is astounding to me that Bush would have the gall to politicize the terrorism issue. Who will be the first Democratic challenger to point out the obvious -- that the attacks of 9/11 occurred on Bush's watch?