There are a couple of good letters to the editor in the Post-Gazette today. Let's take a look:
Repulsive policiesSharon Rusnak's July 31 letter ("Hardly Reputable") decries Democrats for cheering Bill Clinton. She has a point. Clinton's sexual mores as president were reprehensible.
Yeah, it was all about the sex. It couldn't have had anything to do with that whole perjury thing.
Ms. Rusnak should apply the same revulsion to George W. Bush...
"You will not deviate from the ideals of The Party!"
...an appointed, not elected, president...
"The Constitution let a Republican win! That's unconstitutional!"
...who came to office with minimal accomplishments.
Yeah, he was only the governor of a state that's larger than many countries.
If this wasn't enough, she should certainly be repulsed by his economic policies...
"The mean right-wingers aren't allowed to help people! That doesn't match my preconceived view of the world!"
...which have led to record deficits...
Oh, I could've sworn the whole deficit thing was due to Clinton. And, you know, the fact that the WORLD TRADE CENTER WAS DESTROYED.
...and lower taxes for the wealthy...
Apparently, "the wealthy" means "everyone who pays taxes." Weird.
...and his sending young people to their deaths...
Good call. It's not like they're allowed to fight back or anything.
...in a questionable...
Treating opinion as fact? Check.
...ultra-expensive war.
How dare he actually spend money to defend the country. Seeing as how you view war as "sending young people to their deaths," wouldn't you want those people to be well-armed? It seems like you just want to send them over there with Nerf guns and whiffle bats.
This in the country of Iraq...
Thanks for that vital piece of information.
...about which one writer wrote after the first Gulf war: "Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile state." The writer was George H.W. Bush. Did he teach his son to read?
The logic here really confuses me. Is the writer saying that George H.W. Bush is automatically right? Or that Dubya should listen to his opinion simply because he's his father? I don't get it.
In any case, we should've stayed in Iraq after the first Gulf war, because then Saddam couldn't have come back into power and terrorized his people for another 12 years. In other words, George W. Bush made a better decision than his father. If you can believe that.
Anyway, one other letter just contains a hilarious line. Check it out:
[Clinton] may have misrepresented the facts when he denied his affair, but it didn't cause one American life to be lost. I wish I could say the same for President Bush!
Aside from the pathetic use of the "nobody died when Clinton lied" technique, I just think it's funny to characterize Clinton's actions by saying he "may have misrepresented the facts." Because I could've sworn he "deliberately lied under oath, thereby committing an illegal act."
But maybe I'm misrepresenting those facts.
Posted by CD on August 7, 2004 07:30 PM