This entry is how a really smart, nice, rational, progressive guy [Eric Berlin] handles a current news story.

This is how a really smartass, mean, irrational, anarchist guy handles the exact same story.

heh.

Don't believe the hype, Shark. I'm simply opening up with the jab so that you can land the knock-out.

(Did I just watch The Contender last night on DVR... yes, I did...)

You do bring up a good point about character, Eric. I have high hopes that we'll see Bush stand by his guns in the face of polls, opposition and criticism. I'd like to see him fight to the very end for the important issues on which he knows he's right, like Iraq, taxes and social security. Even if he goes down in flames it will be a legacy to be proud of, and 20 years from now when we all live in state-sponsored 'equitable housing' and send our kids to the Hilary Clinton Madrassa we can look back on Bush and remember how he fought for us and we failed him. We won't be allowed to say it, of course - as the bill of rights will have been rescinded and there will be new sedition laws.

Dave

Bush fought for us? The American people have supported this buffoon and for this, Bush fought against us, spending, killing and lying. He has failed us more than any other president.

By his own records, Mr. Bush sat out the Vietnam war in the comforts of Tx and La. Mr. Cheney was even more offensive: he got 5 deferments (sp?) and then got married and immediately spawned babies so he couldn't be taken, because, as he put it so delicately, he "had better things to do" than serve with the rest of the peons. Fought for us? Who? Not Cheney and Bush, fershur. Neither one of them ever got a patent leather loafer damp, let alone slogged thru the jungles of SE Asia with all those who had nothing better to do than go and get killed or maimed. Fought for us? When? Where? The only groups G. W. Bush & co. have ever fought for have been their fellow billionaires and corporate pirates. Please don't try pulling THAT old fable on us. The records - and the quotes - are there.

Please, by ALL means don't read my posts before responding to them. Where did I say anything about Bush's military record or lack thereof. That's obviously not what comment #4 was about.

Bush is fighting for us NOW. He's fighting to make the lives of people in America better, and while he hasn't failed yet, the foolishness of people who oppose him contrary to their own best interests and continue to drag up irrelevancies like WMDs and his military record from 40 years ago, just make it harder for him to make any progress.

If Bush ends up a failure the blame will go squarely on those partisan political forces which put their own interests ahead of the welfare of the people and blocked his tax, social security and health reforms.

Dave

If Bush ends up a failure the blame will go squarely on those partisan political forces which put their own interests ahead of the welfare of the people and blocked his tax, social security and health reforms.

Thanks for a good laugh. The afternoon's getting on and I was getting sleepy.

That's really really funny.

If Bush ends up a failure the blame will go squarely on those partisan political forces which put their own interests ahead of the welfare of the people and blocked his tax, social security and health reforms.

Given that about 2/3rd's of the American public is against Bush's SS policy, my perspective would be that those partisan political forces are serving their own best interest by listening to the people who put them in power. Clearly they are the ones listening to what the American people want, and isn't that what politics should be about?

There's no question that partisan political forces ALWAYS serve their own best interests. They certainly don't put their top priority on serving the best interests of the general public.

If the American people would rather have false security than an equitable tax and social security system, they got to that point by being misled by those with a vested interest in the status quo. Responsible politicians are also leaders, and they could show some leadership and help people come to understand how much better their lives could be with some serious governmental reform. But with a few exceptions our politicians aren't really leaders, they're just self-serving opportunists and puppets of special interests.

Dave

Bush is fighting to eliminate our environmental protections. Taking away the opportunity for cleaner water, air, and wilderness. He is working to allow more mercury to get into everyones body, allow more development on unspoiled lands and to cut down more trees, including old growth, so loggers can have more jobs. He is working to ignore science and hide reports that don't agree with his policies.

I wonder if Richard and MCH are the same person, just using two different names for the two issues he cares about and use to divert other discussions to his areas of obsession.

Dave

No Dave, I am an scientist who works with environmental laws and am saddened by what this administration has been doing to our environment and, in turn, the American people. Richard

Richard - I don't think environmental issues can be emphasized enough, and often get slighted or the short end of the stick in the media and here at BC.

The environment is yet another area where the Bush Administration has catered very specifically to corporate interests to the detriment of all else.

Don't I know it. Bush is trying to change the National Environmental Policy Act right now, is eliminating the roadless rule, which has had the most support of any environmental rulemaking, and calls his plans the opposite of what they really do, such as "Clear Skies", which delays cleanups of old coal fired power plants, "healthy Forests" which allows increased old growth logging, etc..

Clear Skies et al reminds me of another recent piece of mine, in which I quote Bush as stating that bankruptcy reform will "bring integrity back to the bankruptcy process."

What's the roadless rule, Richard?

Google it for a good explaination, but the roadless rule is a Clinton/Forest Service plan that decided that since there are more miles of road on forest service lands than in the US highway system, and that the forest service dosen't maintain them as well as they should, that anyplace without roads should be left for animals and future generations to enjoy.

Does anyone know the true figures of how many kinfolk!of anyone in the government,that has or is serving in Iraq. Actually not behind a desk! Perhaps the Bush twins?? Why not?

Does anyone know the true figures of how many kinfolk!of anyone in the government,that has or is serving in Iraq. Actually not behind a desk! Perhaps the Bush twins?? Why not?

Hmm... good question. According to Michael Moore, only one child of a Congressman (I believe) was serving in Iraq around the time F/911 came out.

The Bush clan believes in ministering mainly to their fellow overprivileged billionaires in comfy, safe surroundings, or in situations in which valuable sound bites or photo ops can be taken, but no actual labor or contact with the hoi-polloi is required, as shown by the recent Mother Teresa Memorial Charity Tour of Lady Bush & Twins somewhere in the darkest African version of Rodeo Drive.

Could some pro Bush people please tell me how sending our boys and girls to a sand field to die in a religious "holy war;-)" that is thousands of years old, helps AMERICA!!!

Eric B., Nancy, Elaine;
It is a sad fact that the majority of those with the power to send our youth to their deaths, avoided the same scenario themselves; in addition to making sure their offspring also remain safely at home.

MCH - Do you think, with Paul Hackett's candidacy in Ohio and other announcements of returning soldiers running for Democratic nominations, that we're going to see a new generation of veterans going to work for the Democratic Party ?

Eric B.,

Can't really answer that, although I think it's a good sign. As a longtime believer that action speaks louder than words, and the best leaders lead by example, it is more than disconcerting knowing that the top two guys who instigated this war are a deserter and a draft dodger.

I for one would feel much better about our purpose over there if the folks who have actually seen action were running the show...guys like John McCain, or Colin Powell, or John Kerry, et al. Just ol' GW's "Mission Accomplished" speech alone is a great indicator of how far removed from the realities of combat he is.

Many of the veterans that I've interviewed for my column ask the same question; If this invasion was so righteous, why aren't the Bush and Cheney kids over there?

I think I speak for many Democrats when I say that I'd be MUCH more comfortable with a McCain, Powell, or even Bush 41 in the White House -- veterans who think very carefully about the consequences of military action.