debpet
Published Letters: 290 Editor's Choice: 14
Laura Bush has also been known to talk about what a big heart George has. Unfortunately, in that case, as well as in this case concerning their response to the suffering produced by the war, George's policies and actions simply belie her words.
George Bush's economic policies, tax policies, environmental policies and energy policies all demonstrate indisputably that his only true concern is to pour more multimillions into the pockets of the big corporate elite who are his primary supporters. Virtually everything he does, straight down the line, has that as it's ultimate goal. His occasional rhetorical tips of the hat in the direction of "compassion" ring extremely hollow when one considers how consistently his policies enormously benefit the already very wealthy at the expense of those in real need and the needs of society at large.
And as for the war, if he had any genuine feelings of concern about the consequences of going to war he would never have made the decision tht the ONLY way to deal with Iraq was by invading it. He would have listened not only to the voices that were hyping the threat Iraq suposedly represented but also to those that were presenting information that contradicted that view. He would have genuinely sought to strengthen international support for increased diplomatic and economic pressure to better restrain Saddam Hussein. Instead, his whole effort was not to avoid war, but to try (with very limited success) to rally support for it. And, having made such a huge error to begin with, he would not be so mulishly obstinate in refusing to recognize and admit the disastrous consequences of his action.
Of course the Republicans want people to focus on inane and trivial matters. If people focus on real substantive issues they're going to realize that they actually favor the Democrats.
Somehow I doubt that that this is going to slip by unnoticed even if it happens at 5:30 p.m. on Friday. This is an issue that people ARE paying attention to, and even on the weekend the media and the pundits wouldn't be able to resist blathering about "What happens next?".
The MSM will report a number like this, showing that a solid majority of Americans support a Democratic position. And then they will turn around and continue to do their main reporting based on the assumption that the Republicans represent the mainstream of America. They don't even listen to their own reports!
I always appreciated the listing of who was going to be on the various talk shows and late night shows and frequently found it useful. For example, it was good to have some idea who was going to be on Charlie Rose. I'll miss that.
Mitch Mc Connell is mistaken. It is George Bush and his cohorts who started this misgotten war and have pursued it with such mulish obstinancy and incompetencein the face of all evidence that their policies have tragically failed. No matter what happens from this point Iraq will ALWAYS AND FOREVER be George Bush's war.
'An American', I believe Bill was referring to the recent election that narrowed the field down to the two final run-off candidates.
Wait until April of next year...TO DECIDE IF WE SHOULD KEEP GOING??? And, with Bush and his minions still in charge, is there any chance that the answer would be anything but keep going?
How many more lives will be lost on all sides? How many more billions of dollars poured down the hole?
Doctors use to treat a wide variety of conditions by using leeches to draw the blood from a patient. And the treatment often did more harm than good. Well, this war without end is drawing the blood both from Iraq itself and from the U.S. And the harm being inflicted is incalculable.
Cathcurtis,
If you will read the caption under the picture accompanying the article you will see that the picture was not from the white tie state dinner, but from a different event at the British Embassy.
Certainly one of the more ludicrous statents made in that exchange was that the administration/Republicans "have a big tent". Sorry Dana, but simply asserting something doesn't make it so. Rejection of what ever doesn't agree with their agenda is one of the hallmarks of Bush Co.
Some fundamentalist religious zealots will no doubt be surprised...and very indignant...to see Jesus listed among the DEMOCRATIC candidates. Maybe it would open their eyes to go back and simply read the teachings actually attributed to Jesus in the Gospels.
Jesus is not reported as saying a single word on the subject of homosexuality.
Nowhere does Jesus advocate using the power of the government to control people's behavior and choices with respect to the most personal and intimate areas of their lives, those associated with sexual activity.
And yet, many of those who invoke his name define their "Christianity" primarily on those two issues, as though they were the most important themes of Jesus' ministry.
On the other hand, Jesus was constantly talking about regarding each other as neighbors and helping those who are in need.
The association of the most conservative elements of Christianity with hard core right wing Republican politics is one of the most deplorable developments of the last couple of decades It has had a profoundly harmful effect on the making of our public policies and it has presented a very distorted picture of what Christianity is to those outside the faith.
I suppose this is a rather serious response to what was essentially a humorous political comment, but it's something I feel very strongly about and I couldn't resist.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox