Letters

Re "Crunch Time," your report on the final days of the presidential campaign [Oct. 18]: Not once during the debates or political rallies did any candidate seriously scrutinize the subject of space travel and exploration. Let's face it: space is a lost cause these days. Science in general is hurting. We know the geography of Iraq better than we know the ocean depths. Back in the cold war era, science blossomed because of funding provided for nuclear-weapons research. In ancient times, scientific ideas prospered as people discovered and explored the new out of sheer curiosity. Imagine a universe just 50 years in the future in which a summer house on Mars is perfectly affordable to the lower middle class, ordinary travelers take sightseeing tours of the moons of Jupiter and starships sail majestically through the soundless void. But in this U.S. election season, science has been completely bypassed.

TANJIM HOSSAIN Orlando, Fla.

I am troubled by people who say, "I never vote for the party, I vote for the man." You can't have one without the other. The candidate belongs to the party, and what you see is what you get. The party declares its stands on the issues, and its candidates had better stick to those positions or they won't get financing from the party. Politicians will always side with the majority of their party on any issue, whether it be abortion, Iraq, the Patriot Act, or raising or lowering income taxes.

GORDON LEVY Coarsegold, Calif.

The ability to vote freely is under attack. Registration forms have been torn up and discarded, minorities and college students have been intimidated, and registrations have been disallowed for the slightest imperfection. Am I alone in feeling outraged, appalled, terrified? The right to vote is the very core of democracy. We cannot allow public apathy and political manipulation to undermine it.

KEN KEATON Lauderhill, Fla.

Though the political parties have collected vast amounts of voter information in their secret databases, as your article pointed out, sometimes they don't realize that a person has died. My mother continues to receive her Republican Party membership card and pleas for donations, even though she died almost two years ago. I returned several pieces of mail and wrote DECEASED across the face of the envelope. I finally sent one back with the message "She's dead. Do you get it?" Still, her mail from the G.O.P. continues to arrive almost weekly. Maybe, since deceased voters have been known to cast ballots, it's in the party's interest to keep sending mail.

JANE KOCH Montclair, Va.

Scare Tactics

On the surface, Charles Krauthammer's Essay "The Case for Fearmongering" [Oct. 18] provides a counter- intuitive yet compelling case for the strategic evocation of fear. The underlying assumptions are that being afraid is salutary and that awareness of the threat of terrorist attacks will motivate swift, effective action and ultimately result in a safer America. Unfortunately, the true motive for scaring the American people is to win the election. The U.S. is no safer than it was before 9/11, and the passionate rhetoric to do everything possible to defeat terrorism will largely fall by the wayside, along with the flotsam of other broken campaign promises. Superficial, symbolic bills may be passed and empty new bureaucracies may be formed, but neither will truly protect America.

RYAN SHEEHAN Chardon, Ohio

Krauthammer's argument in favor of fear hit a home run. While today's urgent issues are the economy, unemployment, health insurance and education, tomorrow's pressing issue will be nuclear warfare. We cannot uninvent nuclear fission and its terrifying consequences for the human race any more than we can uninvent gunpowder. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a responsible government can sit idle, serving only as a threat of retaliation against less responsible governments. Those same weapons in the hands of nations that care nothing for earthly survival can destroy the world.

FRANCES F. MULLON Ripley, Okla.

The case Krauthammer makes for fearmongering is implausible on its face. Fear as a political tactic does not help people identify the threats against them; it engenders paranoid feelings that anyone might be a danger. Fear does not help citizens in a democracy act more rationally. Perceiving everyone as a threat encourages random viciousness--eventually against even one's friends. A campaign of fear does not allow for the return to any status quo; it demands a permanent war of all against all.

EUGENE V. TORISKY JR. Greensburg, Pa.

Just how much more fear do we need to whip up the public? Krauthammer suggests that we're not fearful enough. Golly, should I start installing surveillance cameras around my property to make sure terrorists aren't lurking in the shrubs before I let my children out to play? Should I build my backyard bunker now? Should we be deeply concerned about terrorists obtaining nukes? Yes. Should we be continually afraid? Absolutely not. Too much constant fear leads to irrational thoughts and actions.

PATRICK O'BRIEN Sandusky, Ohio

Strategic Miscalculations

Your article "What Saddam Was Really Thinking" described disclosures made in Charles Duelfer's CIA report on Iraq's alleged weapons arsenal [Oct. 18]. The greatest mystery is not why Saddam Hussein let the world assume he had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) but why, with the best intelligence our tax money could buy, the U.S. was totally fooled--and as a result has lost more than 1,100 precious American lives. I shudder to think what other surprises await us.

J. CONNOR BOGGS Kaneohe, Hawaii

The U.S. and Britain may have gone into Iraq under false pretenses. But had we not taken the action we did, we probably would seriously regret it in the long run. Saddam certainly had ambitions that, given time to mature, would have affected all the world, greatly to our detriment. Now that we have taken steps to set things right in Iraq, we need to pray for wisdom for our leaders so they will see this through to a just end for the Iraqis.

IAIN RAILTON Exeter, England

For young Americans and young Iraqis to kill each other in a continuing cycle of violence in no way furthers the antiterrorism cause. Getting rid of Saddam was a good idea. But replacing his secular dictatorship with a fundamentalist theocracy would not be so good. Iraq will probably have a civil war that will eclipse and consume any puppet democracy that the U.S. creates. Stay the course? That was our motto in Vietnam.

DANIEL T. ARCIERI Blue Point, N.Y.

Saddam denied having WMD all along. He did not mislead anyone. We just did not believe him. The media failed to ask probing questions about the alleged WMD that would have triggered a debate about the Bush Administration's case for going to war. I blame the media for the mistakes about Saddam's WMD, not the Republicans in Washington.

NIXON BENOIT Malden, Mass.

Candid Comparisons

It took only a few false reports about WMD for the Bush Administration to invade Iraq because of fears of an imminent threat. So why is nothing being done to resolve Sudan's Darfur crisis [Oct. 4], a proven humanitarian catastrophe? Perhaps it is because that tragedy does not pose any immediate danger to the U.S. and the rest of the developed world. Peace negotiations, U.N. convoys and delegations to assess the nature of the genocide are not the solution for Sudan. What is the difference between the Iraqi insurgents and the government-backed Janjaweed militia in Sudan's Darfur region? If billions of dollars can be spent and more than a thousand lives lost to remove one man from power, why can't a few billion dollars be spent to save 50,000 innocent lives? How many more people have to be abused, raped and killed in Darfur before the Bush Administration realizes that now is the time to do something?

SHAGUN MEHANDRU Arlington, Va.

It is deplorable that we are spending so much time, effort and money in Iraq fighting a war based on lies. We proclaim how great it is that Americans are bringing freedom to Iraqis, but we are not lifting a finger militarily to stop the killings in Sudan. Our priorities as a nation are completely messed up.

THOMAS RASMUSSEN Eagle Mountain, Utah

The rationale for the war in Iraq hinged on dismantling a murderous regime. The Bush Administration's choice to ignore the situation in Sudan either reflects a lack of commitment to principle or calls into question the President's motives for invading Iraq.

ADAM OBLEY Topeka, Kans.

Baked Alaska?

"Vanishing Alaska," about how the rising ocean is flooding Alaskan coastal villages [Oct. 4], accurately captured the severe economic, social and environmental toll that global warming is inflicting on America's most northern state. Here in Alaska we are at ground zero for the rapidly escalating heat war, and our state demonstrates that the costs of inaction in controlling greenhouse-gas emissions (e.g., relocating entire villages and cities) will clearly outweigh the costs of reduction strategies. Fortunately, with our vast wind and geothermal power and other renewable energy resources, plus our ingenuity, Alaskans can be part of the climate-change solution. We desperately need more leaders who understand the importance of technological innovation and good old know-how, activists who will pass laws to address immediately the need for greenhouse-gas reductions.

DEBORAH L. WILLIAMS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALASKA CONSERVATION FOUNDATION Anchorage, Alaska

The story on the Eskimo village of Shishmaref, Alaska, whose coastline is shrinking because of flooding and erosion, mentioned that it is unknown "how much is due to global warming and how much is due to natural movement of rivers and coasts." As a geologist, I do not doubt that global warming affects temperature-sensitive areas like Alaska, but it seems irresponsible to suggest a cause without also stating the need for further study. Also, it is difficult to see the correlation between lost coastline in the permafrost of Alaska and global warming's "washing away coastal towns in the rest of the U.S.," which would require a significant rise in sea level.

BRAD JOHNSON Pocatello, Idaho

A Lesson Learned

Joe Klein, in his "No Pain? No Gain for Either Candidate" column [Oct. 18], bemoaned the candidates' lack of honesty about tax policy during the debates. But remember the 1984 debate between Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale, when the latter infamously predicted that the next President, whoever he might be, would definitely raise taxes? At the same time, Reagan said he would not increase taxes. Two things happened after that: Mondale lost 49 out of 50 states, and Reagan raised taxes. Want honesty in debates? Forget about it!

DOUG WEISKOPF Cincinnati, Ohio