On Sept. 24 you published a front-page article, "Tying Kerry to Terror Tests Rhetorical Limits," that was labeled as an analysis. The article is 189 lines long, and 141 of them simply repeat the accusations Republicans have been heaping on Sen. John Kerry.

Only 48 lines concern anything else. There is a reference to the 18th century and a reference to the "McCarthy communist hunt," but where is the analysis, the connection with today? Repetition is not analysis.

Had your reporter wanted to analyze something, perhaps he could have asked and answered this question: "If Republicans know the terrorists well enough to report their feelings about John Kerry, why haven't they caught them?"

Of course, the obvious question never gets analyzed in our upside-down world.

-- Joyce V. Murrell



Your paper said that "[w]hatever the merits, the charges that terrorists prefer Democrats have been echoed by independent commentators and journalists. CNN analyst Bill Schneider, asked about [House Speaker Dennis] Hastert's remarks, agreed that al Qaeda 'would very much like to defeat President Bush.' "

Is Bill Schneider an independent commentator? Schneider, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, and co-author of a book with Richard Perle, said this year on Judy Woodruff's "Inside Politics" show: "President Bush can claim consistency. Does Governor Dean's support for Bosnia and Kosovo, and his opposition to Iraq, make him a hypocrite? No. It makes him a Democrat."

CNN's Schneider, like Hastert, can believe whatever he wants. But in his role as an analyst, allegedly nonpartisan, shouldn't he think before endorsing a charge as incendiary as Hastert's in front of millions of viewers?

-- Marcia Van Horn