Aside from providing an exhaustive summary of the anti-Bush talking-points from the Democratic National Committee, your string of groundless attacks on the President’s “Wayward War” effort reveals the deep partisan bitterness guiding the President’s political opponents, as well as the emptiness of their position.
To your tired claim that the President is pursuing military action in Iraq to distract the nation’s attention from economic concerns, you should employ your own weary battle cry – “Where is the proof?” It’s a convenient argument for Democrats, but hardly realistic.
Frankly, it’s hateful rhetoric.
To suggest that President Bush would sacrifice human lives for traction on political issues is to ask Americans to believe that Bush is evil incarnate.
Your editorial unloads on the President with such obvious partisan rage, you choke off your own credibility with the unmistakable stench of sour grapes.
Bush’s “stealthy” election win is part of the current debate. Bush won 29 states, including the one his opponent calls home.
Gore got 19. The fact that you chose to include every imaginable barb in your assault on the war effort demonstrates that your criticism, in fact, has nothing to do with the issue of Iraq.
You hate President Bush.
That’s the only point your editorial makes.
Since you refuse to entertain the notion that the President and his supporters are acting in the interest of national security in their effort to avert future tragedy (remember that thing with the planes and the dead people?), you level a string of ridiculous motivations for the tension with Iraq, once again without any justification.
Lust for oil? Since the left hurled the same accusation in 1990, I suppose we should be looking back at U.S. nationalization of the Kuwaiti oil industry and soaring oil prices.
“The war his daddy couldn’t finish?”
Is it history or just the United States that the editorial board is trying to insult?
President George H.W. Bush followed the U.N. mandate to the letter, vowing to liberate Kuwait and kick the Iraqis out.
You were right when you stated that nobody wants to go to war.
Saddam Hussein isn’t a military threat to the U.S. so much as he represents a potential holocaust through his association with these groups.
Where will the anti-Bush crowd be when one of America’s cities is devastated by terrorists with friends in Baghdad?
Where will the snappy editorial writers (who refer to Spielberg movies in lieu of an understanding of history) be when smallpox rages up and down the East Coast with no cure?
While President Bush acts on his promise to make the safety of every American citizen an ironclad priority, it’s useful to engage in a healthy debate about the specifics of his policies.
Your editorial, however, is neither healthy nor useful.
With its groundless personal attacks and one-sided posturing, the Temple News editorial board has proven itself to be a group of dithering uninformed political hacks, incapable of mounting a salient argument beyond their own partisan whining.
Maybe it’s the Temple News that needs a regime change.
– Dawn Dneaster