Good op-ed from the Toronto Star regarding Bush's SOTU speech.
Bush act starts to wear thin
It is unrealistic to expect total honesty from politicians. Their partisanship guarantees self-praise and self-serving arguments. Still, citizens expect them to operate within reasonable rhetorical limits. In the case of the president of the United States, whose constituency is not confined to his nation, the world expects his words to bear some resemblance to reality.
This is WHY I'm not an ABB person. I cannot in good faith promote congressional Democratics with their appealing record of NOT stand up for the very issues of our democracy. For the last three years the Democratics have done nothing for the people of US.
Journalist Haroon Siddioui writes the following:
He posited the invasion of Iraq as a war of liberation. But that was never his chief stated aim. It was to neutralize the direct danger posed to the U.S. by the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Those weapons -- anthrax, botulin, nerve agents and nukes from Niger, so dramatically and graphically illustrated in last year's State of the Union address -- have now cleverly been downgraded to "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." (my italics).
On his unilateralist war, Bush said he merely refused to "submit to the objections of a few." An overwhelming majority of nations opposed the invasion. That's "a few"?
The president did look good rhyming off the list of his "coalition of the willing." But the contributions of those beyond the U.S. and Britain have been minimal. Which is why American taxpayers are paying most of the $120 billion bill for the war, unlike the 1991 Gulf War whose $60 billion cost was paid almost entirely by the allies.
You should read this journalist because it hi-lighs real problems with the Democratic Party these days.