<http://schema.org/articleBody>
" BEDECKED IN BLING, Donald Trump greeted readers from the cover of our fourth-annual What It Feels Like issue. Inside, Benjamin Alsup immersed himself in the world of spinners and spoons to explore the surging sport of pro bass fishing (&amp;quot;A Fish Story&amp;quot;), and James McManus offered an impassioned critique of the federal government&amp;#039;s stem-cell policy, in part by showing how the stalled research could potentially save the life of his own daughter (&amp;quot;Please Stand By While the Age of Miracles Is Briefly Suspended&amp;quot;). But no article elicited as much reaction as Tom Junod&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;The Case for George W. Bush.&amp;quot;  Finally someone has articulated a cogent response to the Bush haters, who would rather denounce the president than examine the true nature of the struggle in which the United States finds itself. Abraham Lincoln was indeed fortunate not to have to endure such a blistering condemnation from a polyglot of dithering, hateful politicians and prognosticators. Had he, it is likely the Confederacy would have prevailed. HARRY GOSS Woodville, Tex. Junod has shed light on the conflict Bush spurs in many liberals. For us, Bush the man inspires a near-automatic distaste. However, seemingly despite himself, he has established a track record of moral clarity in the war on terror that cannot be taken for granted. His pragmatic idealism in action would easily inspire liberals--if he would just do us the courtesy of looking and sounding like John F. Kennedy. ERIC CHEN New York, N. Y. I was disappointed not to be able to find one of my favorite columns, The Indefensible Position, in the August issue. What a relief to discover that it had just moved farther back under the guise of &amp;quot;The Case for George W. Bush.&amp;quot; SCOTT ROTH Burlingame, Calif. Junod&amp;#039;s essay is so full of woolly thinking that I am not sure it was intended as a defense of Bush. His line of reasoning seems to be this: Despite all his shortcomings, Bush is uniquely qualified to deal with such a crisis--the only Churchill in a country of Chamberlains. But can we honestly believe that neither Kerry nor Gore would have dealt decisively with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere (and without being distracted by a little adventure in Iraq)? Of course the threat of terror is serious business. But if all we have is Bush&amp;#039;s manly steadfastness, we&amp;#039;ll never defeat the hydra of global jihad. RALPH C. MEHLER Clark, Pa.  Junod&amp;#039;s insightful article enabled me to reach past the growing reservoir of personal bile I&amp;#039;ve developed about the current regime in Washington and to review, once again, my judgments. For this I&amp;#039;m grateful. But my review ended with the same conclusions: With the dismissive attitude he expressed toward the United Nations and America&amp;#039;s traditional allies, Bush not only threw away the best tool he had to fight effectively against terrorism, he also trashed a sixty-year American tradition of support for the UN to resolve issues that threaten world peace. ROLF L. WIEGAND Covington, Ky. THE GREATER GOOD? The ethical issues underlying James McManus&amp;#039;s story on stem-cell research polarized readers. Thank you for a comprehensive, heartbreaking, and desperately needed article. I wept in my husband&amp;#039;s arms after reading it. I&amp;#039;m outraged by the stupidity and hypocrisy of people who make righteous claims about the morality of &amp;quot;destroying&amp;quot; five-day-old cells for medical research while feeling totally vindicated about sending our young, living, breathing men and women to war. LISA WILLIAMS Calabasas, Calif. McManus would have approved of Josef Mengele if he thought the good doctor&amp;#039;s experiments would have helped his daughter. What a vicious, hate-filled article about a genuine moral quandary. But, shazam, I&amp;#039;m just one of those Bible-totin&amp;#039; red-state fanatics, not an enlightened secular humanist, ethical relativist, or Frenchman. BOB HOLLADAY Tallahassee, Fla. BORED OF THE RINGS Backing America&amp;#039;s skeet shooters was a matter of patriotism--until Chuck Klosterman ridiculed Olympic supporters as blind nationalists in his August column.  Rooting for the home team is not a matter of right and wrong. It&amp;#039;s about recognizing the achievements of our fellow countrymen and -women, who have worked their asses off to get where they are. There&amp;#039;s nothing morally questionable about honoring hard work and achievement, and there&amp;#039;s nothing wrong with supporting people who have utilized our culture&amp;#039;s resources to develop their skills. ADAM REED Addison, Tex. Letters to the editor may be mailed to The Sound and the Fury, Esquire, P.O. Box 1704, Sandusky, Ohio 44870. Also, Esquire encourages the use of fax (212-649-4305) and e-mail (to esquire@hearst.com or via the Web at esquire.com/talk). Include your full name, address, and daytime phone number. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a480/esq1004-oct-sf/>