Letters to the Editor
Tideswimmer
Published Letters: 383 Editor's Choice: 47
-
Blame
[Read the article: Do Dems now share equal blame with Bush for Iraq? No]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is so much blame to go around that we don't need to drop it all on one person or party.
First blame: The Bush Corporation. Before he was even not elected the first time I was telling everyone I knew that he was going to take us — somehow, someway — into Iraq. How did I know this? Look at who he was gathering around him! Let's set it in the context of Gotham City. It's as if the person running for Mayor was touting as his advisors the Joker, Riddler, Penguin, Cat Woman, and Mr. Freeze. The people elect him anyway only to be shocked, shocked! that the new agenda is a crime spree. Plus, we knew he was going to because in the debate with Gore he said he had no interest in nation building. Bush is a liar, and not even a very good one.
Second blame: The Democrats who voted to give away their war authorization powers. The case for Saddam having nuclear weapons were always ridiculous at best; give me a break with all the "I was mislead" crap. I knew there were no weapons of mass destruction and so did anyone who even read the articles on Salon. The evidence of bullshitery were far more obvious than the evidence for mushroom clouds. Saddam was no jihadist, and the Iraqi people had NOTHING to do with 9/11. The idea that Saddam wanted to attack the U.S. makes no sense. The best course for Saddam to follow was to have the sanctions lifted so that he could continue his little dictatorship as he always had. It should have been obvious to the democrats who voted for war authorization powers for the president that they were voting for an invasion of Iraq. Buzzing in the back of their head was the nagging question: "What if the whole thing works like a charm?" You can already hear the snickering attack ads come next election time — "Hillary Clinton thought invading Iraq was a bad idea (snicker snicker). Can we really trust a Senator who thought invading Iraq was a bad idea?"
George Bush did not take the Imperial power he now enjoys. It was all given to him bit by bit.
Third blame: Connecticut. You had a chance to dump Lieberman. You didn't. I'm sure his win was largely fueled by lots of Republicans crossing party lines to vote for a Republican. You Democrats who still supported him; oh for crying out loud. He couldn't have made his intentions more clear. Now he sits in a blackmail seat.
Fourth blame: The Republican senators who still don't realize that Bush's entire agenda at this point is to make their existence irrelevant. For the love of whatever you might find holy, defend the constitution of this great country of ours!!!!! Hell, even fund the troops if you want, but only after you have forced the Bush Corporation back into an equal partnership with congress. For the love of country and the oath you took, overturn his vetos until he is humbled into his proper balance. If you do not do this, then all is truly lost.
Fifth blame: The wow factor. Whatever the festering rot at the core of American society is that allows the Bush Corporation to continue on without us storming the castle and riding them out on a rail. Wow. Wow. Remember when Bush said, "If this was a dictatorship, this would be a whole lot easier. (heh heh)" Well, he's been trying hard to make things easier for himself for years while we worry about who should be the next American Idol. Wow.
Sixth blame: How about it, America? Does Bush still seem like the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with. Next time try not being so god damned stupid. Just try it for once.
Seventh blame: All those I forgot to blame, I now hereby blame.
-
Yep.
[Read the article: Dithering Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think this article is a good summation. The Democrats still allow Bush to control all terms of discussion. They should have stuck to their guns for no other reason than that eventually it would have to restructure the terms of debate. Now, Bush gets to speak in terms of how his vision of no "arbitrary timelines" and withdrawal being surrender are the correct interpretations.
More than the funding, I think what outrages me is that smirky gets to control this rhetoric when I think the American people are beyond ready to have a conversation on the subject that might actually make sense. George Bush and the Rovian language factory have turned us into a nation of baby talkers. We are ruled by an infant, and no one has the guts to just tell him to shut up. As if his goo goo gaa gaa is an opinion that's as valid as any other.
How does a person in Bush's position - no support, no popularity, no rational policy - still end up holding all the cards? How the fuck does that happen?
-
Hilarious
[Read the article: When Democrats collapse]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hilarious!
And yes, why does Jimmy Carter have to apologize for stating the obvious? Carter and Habitat are building houses as fast as they can, and Bush is blowing them all up, and Carter is the one who has to apologize?
Excuse me. A flaming penguin just ran through the room. Gotta go.