Michael Mattingly's letter ("Republicans necessary for real national safety," Sept. 9) states that President Bush is a man who will "hunt down any enemy of America."

He expresses his appreciation for a Republican president to keep our nation secure.

I, in turn, will be grateful to have the opportunity to vote against President Bush next November.

Bush certainly has been strong on national security by orchestrating wars and watching the fighting from a distance.

In light of the fact that he avoided Vietnam and was absent without leave from the National Guard, I doubt Bush truly understands the ramifications of all of his decisions.

Our president's service record shows us that he is more than willing to send others into combat, as long as he can remain safely at home.

I also found Mattingly's remark that all of the Democratic presidential candidates "look weak" on national security to be interesting.

One has only to look to Senator John Kerry to see a man who understands war and the true meaning of national defense.

Kerry is a candidate who has personal insight to the importance of a strong military.

He can also identify with the soldiers who are called upon to serve. How can he say, "Democrats do not have the resolve to keep America safe"?

Kerry's three Purple Hearts from Vietnam are a solid testimony otherwise.

America would benefit from a president who is willing to send troops when necessary, yet can also exercise restraint, when possible, for the sake of our armed forces.