519615777.html

Saturday, Nov. 5, 2005 | 8:49 a.m.

Letter: Iraq invasion used for popularity boost

What if the final decision to invade Iraq was made by Karl Rove because he wanted to keep national defense as the main issue for the 2004 election? President Bush's father had very high ratings after the first Gulf War, but they went down when the war was not on the front pages. After 9/11, Rove didn't want that to happen to the president.

Because of Bush's 9/11, commander-in-chief popularity, John Kerry didn't have the guts to criticize the war that he knew was a huge mistake. Anyone who argued against the war was portrayed as weak on defense. Howard Dean was right about the war, now he is a national joke.

Bush would never have invaded Iraq if he had not been duped by Ahmad Chalabi into believing that a war would be quick and with few casualties. Chalabi now wants to be the prime minister of Iraq.

This is the second time that we have underestimated our adversary, the other time being Vietnam. Our politicians seem to think that we can intimidate our adversary into submission with our huge military. You can't intimidate a suicide bomber.

What if the world was safer and better off with Saddam Hussein in control of Iraq, just as the world was better off with Tito in control of Yugoslavia? Saddam lost half of his army, all of his air force, and all of his aggressive ambitions with the first Gulf war. He was building palaces, not weapons.

Jim Riley

Las Vegas

Different view on Colorado vote

There are several differences between Nevada and Colorado that render incorrect your Nov. 3 editorial's conclusion that Nevada would be damaged by amending our constitution to adopt language similar to Colorado's Taxpayers' Bill of Rights (TABOR) amendment.

First, Nevada's exceptionally stable tax system is tied to real economic transactions between people. Part of Colorado's "crisis" was a brief and slight reduction in government revenue, even though Colorado's economy continued to grow. This is because Colorado's revenue is tied to a political and invalid measure of economic growth -- congressionally defined taxable income. During the same period Colorado's revenue declined (the fiscal year that included the 9/11 terrorism attacks), Nevada's government revenue was larger than it was the year before -- one of only two Western states for which that was true.

Second, the Nevada Constitution requires initiatives that mandate spending also include a tax to pay for it. In Colorado, voters were allowed to "shoot themselves in the foot" by passing an initiative that required spending but had no revenue source to pay for it. Such a thing simply could not happen in Nevada.

Third, Nevada is in the middle of a four-year-period where our state and local governments have been expanding much more rapidly than our economy. This means we are actively increasing taxation on our citizens. Governing Magazine now ranks us as the 22nd highest ranked state in taxes per capita, and the U.S. Census Bureau reports that in 2004, our median household income has fallen below the national average.

The mixed results in Colorado Tuesday (one anti-TABOR question passed and the other failed) should show you and other opponents of the Tax and Spending Control initiative that TASC works. For over a decade, it was the primary contributing factor to Colorado leading the region in job growth and prosperity for all citizens. Had decisions to expand government services been left in the hands of Colorado's politicians and special interests, that surely would not have been the case.

Bob Beers

Las Vegas

Editor's note: The writer, a Nevada state senator who is proposing a constitutional amendment modeled on Colorado's Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, is a Republican candidate for governor.