George W. Bush: Master of Disguise. (Letters to the Editor).

The article by Gary Benoit entitled "George W. --Master of Disguise" in the September 9th issue is a disgrace to the title of your magazine. How dare you -- or any American -- demean the president as you did in your article? Not only were your arguments invalid, but they were damaging to the honor of the president and the unity of our nation and party. How can you legitimately claim that the fiscal atmosphere of the Clinton administration was healthier than that under George W. Bush? Have you forgotten that it was Clinton's reckless spending and foolish policies that have caused the economic downturn we have lately experienced? And, have you also failed to realize that we are at war? Apparently you do not clearly understand the gravity of our nation's circumstances in this conflict. Our president needs our support, our praise, and laud at this time, not our divisiveness and unfounded criticism. Though I believe that one of the greatest aspects of our freedom is the right to criticize our government, THE NEW A MERICAN has gone too far.

REBECCA MARQUEZ

Valparaiso, Indiana 

First let me state that I think TNA is one of the best periodicals published regarding content, layout, and accuracy. Thank you. However, please also note the following two objections to editorial decisions at TNA.

I am very uncomfortable with covers like the one on the September 9th issue. To me, it seems like an attempt to use a graphic and emotionally based comparison and unflattering pictures to condition readers. Please just give us the facts. Also, it is below a publication the quality of TNA to publish such unflattering pictures. After all, we all make such faces, but it would be less than fair to have such pictures published in this manner, for this purpose. This is also not an isolated instance. These unflattering expressions are totally irrelevant to the purpose of the issue.

My second objection is similar. I often read in the pages of TNA phrases that seem intended to appeal to the emotions rather than reason. Please stick to facts, interpretations, and opinions without dressing them up with inflammatory, opinionated rhetoric.

GEORGE SCHUMPF

Waynesboro, Virginia 

Although we look forward to each issue of the THE NEW AMERICAN and love the publication, we wanted George W. Bush to be the opposite of Bill Clinton. Unfortunately, your story about Bush having the same basic policies as Clinton is true! Many of Bush's policies are as bad -- for their own reasons -- as Clinton's. The most discouraging is Bush's relationship with Mexico. His immigration policy with Mexico is nearly as bad as Clinton's.

The present cabinet is vastly overrated. Secretary of State Colin Powell was chosen for his job for one reason, and it was not his qualifications. The only qualification Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham has for the job is his fund-raising capabilities with the moguls of the industry.

Bush's protection of Clinton sickens even many in the media. That said, there are some reasons for optimism. Both John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld want to protect America. With the "resignation" of INS Commissioner James Ziglar, we now have a chance to enforce internal immigration laws.

WARREN L. BROWN

Portland Maine