This letter is associated with the following article:
Letters
Thursday, February 2, 2006 12:00 AM

Bush's Brezhnev period

Rejecting criticism and mouthing meaningless bromides, Bush gave a speech so stagnant it would have made the Politburo proud.

Read other letters about this article

  • Thursday, February 2, 2006 02:49 PM

    knaves or fools?

    I think I too am beginning to feel that impending head explosion too.

    Just an hour ago, the AP reports: "The enemy — while weakened and under great pressure — is still capable of global reach, still possesses the determination to kill more Americans — and still trying to do so with increasingly powerful weapons," Rumsfeld said at the National Press Club.

    We are winning and will win. Democracy and Freedom ring. The enemy is not defeated and terror lurks with unimaginable horrors. Take heed.

    Did 9/11 change everything? More or less than Hiroshima? the Holocaust? the bloodied fields of Flanders? Gettysburg? etc.

    Anyway, I really appreciate Mr. Blumenthal's thoughtful analysis; but I think that the politburo has mastered just what it needs to maintain power with a sufficient democratic majority here.

Most Active Letters Threads

683

Obama's exceedingly familiar justifications for escalation

The "new" approach to Afghanistan touted by White House officials seems quite old
543

The crazy, irrational beliefs of Muslims

Tom Friedman explains the real problem: stupid Muslims think the U.S. is about war and aggression.
530

The commendably missing element from Obama's speech

There was no pretense that human rights is our goal, or the likely outcome, in escalating the war
440

The face of rotted Washington

Evan Bayh demands more debt-financed war - fought by others - while boasting that he's a stern "deficit hawk."
304

Yes, it's Obama's war now

An uninspiring speech sells a dubious policy, but progressives who feel betrayed have only themselves to blame

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon