Regards,
Peter H.

Larry

Of course, we understand why you’re trying to minimize this; you hate Bush and the Bush administration for setting free millions of people from barbarous regimes, because their doing so was so quite obviously correct.

Yours is nothing but a feeble, spiteful hatred, trying to tear down a victory that happened from actions you opposed because you don’t want to admit that you were wrong.

Show us the depth of your anti-bush hatred, lester; admit that you would rather that the millions of people in Iraq and Afghanistan still be under the control of Saddam and the Taliban, with all the human rights abuses therein and utter lack of freedom, than see the Bush administration succeed in liberating them.

Don’t even try to explain to lester. You can’t get water out of a stone.

Regards,
Peter H.

That article is not about policy per se, but about an attempt to claim that history didn’t happen. If Bush says “we were never ‘stay the course’,” that is simply not true, and it’s disturbing that he wants people to believe that he never uttered those words. It is reminiscent of Clinton’s equally disturbing attempts to claim he didn’t lie under oath during the Lewinsky scandal. To me, the issue isn’t Bush exclusively; it’s the total lack of allegiance to truth that characterizes the whole two-party establishment.

They could, actually, and it would probably work for them. There’s plenty of people disappointed with the Republicans, but the things they are disappointed about the Democrats are every bit as bad at.

State tuitions are so much lower than private tuitions because people like me are forced at gunpoint to help pay for the education of other people’s children. This is immoral at the core, because it’s the responsibility of parents to provide the things their children need to become happy and successful adults, including education. This is socialism, and I want to put an end to it, not expand it into other areas.

So, in other words, all the Democrats’ screaming about “spending cuts” this past budget cycle were nothing.

Figures.

I know this won’t be popular here, but I think it’s quite relevant:

Oh, for pete’s sake; this whole flap over “stay the course” shows why the White House’s one major failing is message discipline.

Anyone who sails or flies knows that “staying the course” doesn’t mean you never change direction; you steer around obstacles, you head slightly off to catch favorable winds or avoid thunderstorms, but throughout the process, you’re following the “course” to your destination.

We are doing similarly in Iraq. Our goal since going in has been a free, democratic, stable, and peaceful country, with no more Saddam, and we have made it clear that we will keep our troops there until that is managed. How we adjust our forces, our aid, etc. will vary, but that’s the whole idea; we are “staying the course” to that final destination.

The reason Dems are trying to spin this is because they have been nailed with “cut-and-run”; people are finally realizing that Dems don’t have the spine or the will to defend our country, and prefer to pander diplomatically and toady for countries who calmly take advantage of the fact. The Clinton era diplomacy is an excellent example; European countries learned that they could continue to trade with Saddam, send materials to anti-US countries, and in general enrich themselves at our expense, and we wouldn’t object; indeed, we would even put ourselves into debt to fight their wars for them (aka Kosovo).

The costs of higher education have risen at about the same rate as healthcare. However, in the field of healthcare, many revolutionary treatments now exist where none were available 20 years ago. There has been no similar revolution in higher education – the quality is the same or less, but costs are roughly quadrupled what they were 20 years ago.

Why is it unreasonable to suggest that the costs of higher education be brought under control, before we have yet another government subsidy for it?

I agree with you, I truly do. And if the GOP wins, I want to see cabinet departments eliminated, budgets slashed, education de-federalized, and government in general dramatically reduced. That’s what I believed would happen in 1994 (wonder how I got that idea?), but it was all baloney.

Fact is, there’s not a single politician at the federal level who has even the slightest bit of integrity. Let’s focus on getting different choices entirely, as soon as possible.

jpe, FYI – substantively, your comments demonstrate a lack of understanding of the interrelationship between general assertions you may feel like making and the need to provide some kind of detail, explanation or evidence for your comments to have meaning or value.