Bush's Entire Record Stinks on Ice vs. Readers Should Be Less Critical of

[underpants]

Bush's Entire Record Stinks on Ice
Editor, Times-Dispatch: First, I would like to thank Molly Ivins for keeping up our spirits while Washington tries to erase so much of the positive work done in the past 40 years to protect our environment, help the needy, and make life truly equal for all Americans. There are so many people who blindly follow the current administration, it's nice to see someone with the guts to speak out.
Second, I would like to respond to Sidney Preston's letter. Preston wants to know why there is "such a continual flow of venom toward the president and very little against state and local authorities in Louisiana." He believes it is because Democrats and others are mad about George W. Bush taking the 2000 election.

Gee, it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Bush spent days doing almost nothing while people were trapped, homeless, or hungry. I know I want my leader to continue on his vacation while a whole city is in dire need of help. And when he finally does turn around and fly back there (wasting more fuel), he ends up grounding all helicopter rescue efforts in that area, which are critical.

No, I am not happy about who is in the White House, but my complaints are about what Bush has done since he got there. Let's see . . . he took us to war based on a lie (with no good exit strategy), made us look like the bullies of the world, rolled back more environmental protections than any president I can remember, has given corporate America almost anything it has asked for, and has created the largest deficit in American history.

I am still trying to figure out what people like about Bush's record. And for those who think I am putting all the heat on Bush -- all the congressmen, senators, and citizens who supported these bad decisions are equally at fault. Cliff Miller. richmond.


http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031785449139&path=%21editorials%21letters&s=1045855935005


Readers Should Be Less Critical of Bush
Editor, Times-Dispatch: There are a few reasons Americans are unhappy with the war in Iraq: (1) We are wasting too many of our soldiers on an unworthy cause; (2) President Bush is not fit for the job of the presidency, so too his policies are not satisfactory; and (3) the war costs too much. Let's try to work out some of these difficulties.
World War I -- 100,000 casualties. World War II 500,000. The Vietnam War 58,000. These are the approximate American death tolls in each war. The war in Iraq is also a legitimate war, and we have lost only about 1,900 American soldiers. Granted, losing a life is a terrible tragedy, but our soldiers showed their willingness to give their lives for their country when they joined the military.

It is true that we have found no weapons of mass destruction, but we have removed an evil tyrant, and we are currently combatting terrorism. Aside from this, we are in the process of achieving an objective of which our Founding Fathers would have been proud -- we are spreading democracy.

Regarding the cost of war, have we not learned our lesson in foreign conflict expenditures? If a certain amount of capital is needed to fight a war, Congress awards it and the money is spent. If the money was not spent for the war in Iraq, the war would end up in a situation similar to Vietnam, a war that should have been won had we expended the required capital.

There are not many Americans who believe Bush has led a flawless attack on Iraq. Some say he ought to have listened to intelligence reports more carefully, sent in more troops, etc., but hopefully after considering these ideas, your readers will be a little less harsh in their criticism of the war in Iraq. Yonatan Cantor. richmond.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031785427893&path=%21editorials%21letters&s=1045855935005

[tk2kewl]

1. Freeper logic never ceases to amaze me

[underpants]

5. Richmond T-D reader also reinvents creationism

Jesus Christ designed a woman to be looked at by one person -- her husband.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x4116563

[orwell]

2. Huh?

Aside from this, we are in the process of achieving an objective of which our Founding Fathers would have been proud -- we are spreading democracy.

I guess I must have missed the "spreading democracy" clause in the US Constitution.

I guess the moral is, if it aint there, make it up.

So much for "strict constructionalists."

[underpants]

4. My copy is old

that spreading democracy part must have worn off on my copy.

[Demit]

3. Yonatan Cantor explains it all for you. LOL!

Either he's a fourth-grader or he's an adult star pupil of Bushco propaganda. Gold star to Yonatan for trying to "work out the difficulties", either way. Oy.

[MasonJar]

6. If Mr. Cantor were one of the 1900, I doubt he would be so amenable

to the deaths. He also did not include the "collateral damage" (their take not mine) deaths of perhaps 100,000 children and mothers and fathers and sons and daughters and etc. who just happened to be living their lives when we invaded and have now had their lives cut short by America. And it is America because we are culpable for letting this happen. It sickens me to be an American these days, and being a Christian has a bad taste sometimes...not because of Jesus and his teachings, but because of the misuse of his Word by a Christian minority intent on twisting His kindness and hope into hell on earth.