Thoughts on Zinn.

Howard Zinn makes several cogent points about people's acceptance of Bush's leadership ("Our War on Terrorism," November issue). He blames the press for not being critical enough of the results of the President's foreign policies. I would go further and blame the press for being complicit and their readers for being susceptible to brainwashing.

The second reason Zinn stated was a lack of any counterarguments from Kerry. Zinn then explained why people have accepted an obviously flawed and failing approach, and that is their "paralyzing fear" of terrorism.

But nearly half of the people voted for Senator Kerry and were not paralyzed. And for those who supported Bush, I would point out that many were driven by hubris, rage, and lust for revenge at any cost. Their concept of conflict resolution is to start a fight. Then there are the naturally bellicose people who long for the days when law was made by the fastest gun. Add to that mix the people who believe that God is on their side and that we are about God's work, and you have some sense of who voted for Bush.

Spencer Spaulding

Denver, Colorado

Howard Zinn is quite correct in pointing out that, at least in terms of political violence, fighting fire with fire is a contradiction that often spreads violence. But I am curious as to why, in the case of Israel and the Palestinians, he mentions only the suicide bombers. On the day I am writing this, Israeli soldiers shot and killed a thirteen-year-old boy during a demonstration in the West Bank.

The killing of unarmed and rock-throwing Palestinians, regardless of age, in their own land by Israeli troops, is routine.

Perhaps Zinn's omitting of Israeli atrocities in his piece was due only to oversight, not bias.

A. Wayne Senzee

Phoenix, Arizona