Dear Mr. President

Okay Dan, what planet are these thoughts being beamed in from? Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11, and former Cabinet members have actually said after 9/11 he wanted to invade Iraq before he invaded Afghanistan. He only relented when he was convinced that the citizens would not support invading a country which had nothing to do with 9/11. So he invaded Afghanistan first, with the blessings of most of the world. Then he returned to his plan for invading Iraq, he clearly cooked the intelligence that he used (I mean from spies, etc. not his own intelligence as we are not sure that he has any), he refused to listen to our allies and in fact allowed his minister of defense to openly insult them, he gratuitously included countries in his axis of evil comments which set back the Iranian trend towards softening its position with respect to the United States. He did not listen to his earthly father, self-righteously proclaiming the God was directing him to do what he did, etc. etc. This President does not deserve our thanks, what he deserves is the passage of several articles of impeachment -- but the best that we can expect is for him to have politically destroyed the Republican base in Congress. Amen.

Hey George ... read all of my article, then respond.

Typical liberal. You read only what you want, make statements based on half-truths and are ready to attack anybody who isn't 100% in agreement with you.

Thanks, Kathleen.

Thanks for your input Mitch. Acknowledged and even partly agreed. At least we have something that we can improve, rather than nothing at all.

The President knows that there are many of us out there who have a clue. Libs are a nasty bunch and complain about everything. He's got them on his 'pay no mind' list ;)

Exactly.

Funny, Oil T, how you forgot about the disaster of Jimmy Carter's administration.

If the country is polarized (and I do believe it is) then it takes people on both sides ... not just Don and Hugh.

Bill Clinton did more to split the country along economic and ideological lines than any president in my memory.

The country was polarized long before Bush. Do you remember the Democrats's statement after he won the 2000 election? It went ... and I might be paraphrasing a little ... He'll never get a single judge appointed. Real good sports. Very cooperative, I'd say.

Great article and thanks for posting this, Some of us do agree with the president. I for one, would not want to do his job. Especially, when he has people critisizing his every move, just waiting for him to make a mistake. Some feel that he has to do everything to please the American public. I disagree, he is not in his job to appease us, he is in that job to do the best for America.

Don, just so know I've really read this -- and I'm not a liberal [whatever that is these days] -- though some of my views may appear that way.

You say: "I wanted to take a minute to thank you for performing a thankless job. In this politically polarized society, you have faced and answered your critics."

He's done no such thing. He's backed down on rights and other issues when the courts oor the bad press forced him to. He has worked in secret to go around our constitution and has specifically sanctioned the writing of laws to do this: witness the current flap with Gonzales and the controversy over his confirmation in the first place re "torture memos." Also, think about the Military Commissions Act. John Yoo, Gonzales' predecessor crafted much of this work. His papers are of record. There is a multitude of other documentation -- much of which is being looked at as we write.
------------------------------------------------------------

You say: "Like a successful coach, you realize that the coach who responds to the fans will soon be sitting with them." He's not a coach [we know what a miserable job he did with his ball team] -- he's the president of the United States. We expect more from him than perpetual stonewalling and disinformation and outright lying.

He's fortunate not to be sitting on the outside looking in [think Nixon] -- or sitting in jail.
-----------------------------------------


You say: "Despite what many may be saying, please remember that there are also many of us (a great deal more than it may appear) who believe that you have the best interest of the American people at heart."

He has the interest of WHICH american people at heart? He didn't win a mandate; and he has consistently flouted what the majority of american people believe in with regard to Iraq and a whole host of other issues. His ratings aren't exactly in the stratosphere. Are you saying, Dan, as he and his supporters do, that the majority us simply don't know what is good for us?
----------------------------------------------------------------

"Were mistakes made? Yes, but they are being addressed."

Too many mistakes have been made to enumerate here and many of them can no longer be addressed with any positive resolution. He broke it and we must fix it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


You say: In particular, I want to thank you for your steadfastness and committment in what will be remembered as one of the defining acts of your tenure."

It was rash behavior at the outset, not commendable, which devolved NOT into steadfastness, but destructive stubbornness; we've shot and squandered our best wad in Iraq -- and he will not be successful in rewriting the history books, even though he has had his records , back to his governorship, sealed!
------------------------------------------------------------

You said: "Many criticized the cost, the strategy, the need. You believed in your heart that it was not only necessary, but that it was time."

I can't speak for his heart [ though I have my doubts]; but would rather he have engaged his brain [or better 'other' brains]. Many may have supported his misguided drive for empire in the beginning, but do NOT support it now, except diehard followers who believe there is merit and salvation in empire, strategic control of the middle east and oil contracts. The democracy he touted had NOTHING to do with it.
-------------------------------------------------------

You ask: "Could a different approach have worked better? Possibly, but no better idea was forthcoming."

Are you referring to the democrats? I believe the IDEA was and is to withdraw -- which is what will ultimately happen -- though we'll keep some sort of presence there over the long run.

And, you ask: "Are more changes needed? Probably. But this, as many tasks of this size are works in progress. The situation needs to be continually evaluated and re-strategized. I believe that you and your administration are doing just that."

I say, as most of the American people are now saying: Any number of strategies could have worked better -- starting with ongoing diplomacy and competent war planning. This administration is doing more of the same; i.e., covertly funding the wrong groups [just as we supported Saddam before we declared him a fiend, just one example]. Again, the list is too long to enumerate here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said: "Are more changes needed? Probably. But this, as many tasks of this size are works in progress. The situation needs to be continually evaluated and re-strategized. I believe that you and your administration are doing just that.

This is in fact a work in progress, which they've been making up as they go along [how many changes in top players and strategy now] and I'll bet their sweating bullets and working fannies off to achieve "success." The world at large is pulling out, so to speak, because their constituences are demanding it and deals benefitting elite pocketbooks are being concluded. WHAT BENCHMARKS HAVE BEEN REACHED? Chris Shays is even saying an alternative is to remove troops to the perimeter and, as he sees it, we will have lost. At this point, what IS winning and what IS losing? We are NOT loved there -- and we're outnumbered. What insanity and immorality to make our troops sitting ducks. 90 percent of Iraqi's want us out, though Shays says we have an obligation to finish what we started -- does that mean the PSA's for the oil are not yet concluded? Insanity.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Our president is speaking at this moment about the Gonzales/attorney flap. He uses the word "partisanship" and "politics" and "truth." How DARE he? Does he think we're utter fools, after all this time? Chris Matthews/Hardball refers to him as Jim Bowie at the Alamo! Speaking of partisan politics -- his sole concern is to preserve that 30% rating he still has with his base.

Don, your loyalty is touching, but dangerously misplaced for the rest of "us Americans" who care what happens to our democracy.

I stick with my position. Lets stop and think -- hm, I am the head of the most powerful country in the world, I have control of a huge system of satelites with the capability of reading the date on dime in a parking lot away up there, I am briefly daily by intelligence officers, I have unlimited access to classified information, if I want intelligence on something I have hundreds, if not thousands of people ready to get the answers. So. I start a war and then say well Congress had the same intelligence that I had -- hogwash. He cooked the intelligence and he knew he cooked it, end of story.

Oil T.

Thanks for the reminder re Afghanistan. The poppy fields are flourishing, the warlords are in control of Puppet Karzai [as they always have been], and the Taliban are staging a tet-like spring offensive -- oh, so that's why we needed the extra troops? Just in case NATO and our nonexistent allies can't handle it? So forget about tip-toeing through the tulips, we'll be standing dress parade in the poppies -- sure.

Bush says in his most bullish, bellicose manner, "Don't ask for any subpoenas." what is he going to do, call in the Guard? They're all over "there" doing double duty for a change.

boycott the oil missy ;)

Let's hear it for the other side for a change!!!

George ... you're stating opinion as though they were facts.

I'll say it again ... opinions are like a--holes. Everybody has one and your stinks!

Which of these was an opinion? That America is the most powerful country on Earth, hm -- sounds like a fact to me. That we have a satelite network capable of reading the date on dime from way up there? hm I believe this is pretty much a fact. That as President he would have unlimited security clearance, as much as it sends chills up my spine -- I don't think that is very debatable. That he has hundreds if not thousands of operatives at his beck and call to get the intelligence? I don't think that is an exaggeration? If you think that Congress had access to the intelligence sources to the same extent that Bush had -- well there is this bridge in New York City that I could quote you a very good price on.

Don H.

I do -- I'm deliberately very frugal. I have changed my lifestyle considerably and feel much better for it -- it's so much easier and I save money too. For when the market crashes. And, as much as I get into it with Steve Y, I understand why he doesn't want to bother sometimes.

What happened to your flag -- have you abandoned our leader? He's pretty feisty about making sure that Rove doesn't have to testify about "things." It's going to be better than going to the theatre -- more money for my new cave in the hills.

Good for you, Missy. It's good to conserve and save. My icon... not bailing on Bush, just using a different icon.

Don,

Yeah, but he might bail on you. Watch out if he calls you and says what a fine job you've been doing lately, or tells you he's got a special little medal for you.


Dan K.

I agree about Clinton being polarizing [but for different reasons probably] I think he sold us all out. He's really a neoCON; not a populist good old boy. Kennedy wasn't an idealist either. None of them are what they seem -- except 'maybe' Ike was. I don't really care nor am I talking about their personal lives either. Ronald Reagan never tore that wall down -- it was well crumbled and on its way -- and he was every bit as crooked as Nixon. Aside from that, they're all gems.

Missy ... I was 3 when Ike left office, so I can't say much about him. The little I do know of Jack Kennedy didn't impress me much. (Don't let me start on the rest of his family.)

Johnson was probably at least as bad as Carter -- but at my age I didn't notice much. We all know about Nixon -- but at least he had some accomplishments. Unfortunately the bads far outweigh the goods.

Jerry Ford never had a chance. Unfair to judge him.

Jimmy Carter (chuckle).

Ron Reagan like him or not ... brought a feeling of pride back to being an American.

Bush 41 ... couldn't build on Reagan's accomplishments.

Clinton ... self-serving ... accomplished nothing positive. Rode a wave of economy founded by his predecessors until his policies drained it. I wouldn't expect much better about Hillary -- maybe she'd even get caught with some female intern.

GW? Probably be remembered for 9/11 and how he responded. He also had to deal with a waning economy and a nation divided from the outset. Given the hand he was dealt, I think that in the long term, history will be kinder than many uf us think.

One thing I will never understand is why some folks seem to think that the fact that many previous presidents were less than stellar makes this current benighted idiot better. There was no compelling reason to attack Iraq except one. They were arranging to sell their oil to the wrong people. Germans, Russians, and for cripe's sake the French! That simply could not be allowed and Bush prevaricated, covered-up and blustered and then went and fixed the problem as he saw it.

Well I bet I know who Dan M is voting for in 2008.

"Ron Reagan like him or not ... brought a feeling of pride back to being an American." I have to agree with you on this particular comment. I actually voted for him both times. I believe his rebuilding American pride, was worth the horrible economic policies which he instituted. Unfortunately, some Republicans actually thought his economic policies worked, when actually all they did was substitute military spending for domestic spending and coupled with tax cuts they plunged us to the bottom of an ocean of red ink. The policies, however, were more apt to work during Reagan's era than they do now because globalization was more in its infancy back then and so you did not experience the great "sucking sound" that Ross Perot described with respect to NAFTA.

Then how do you guys refer to the disaster of the Carter Admin? The one that Reagan improved on.

Carter was a weak President, and he attempted to micromanage things like the attempted raid on the embassy in Iran where none of the helicopters lifted off. Reagan made you feel good while he was destroying the economy and unions. Bush doesn't make anyone feel good except maybe bin Laden as he does just about everything that bin Laden could hope for. But he certainly has destroyed the middle class and made Reagan's dive into red ink look like a shallow skiff.

Dan,

Are you implying I'm a certain age when you say you were three when Ike left office? I wasn't born yet. Heh heh hah! And, besides, that's what history books are for. Bush can seal records all he wants; history will be all the more ruthless because he did so.

Hillary and her girlfriends: I'm no big fan of hers either -- but I don't care if she's as gay as Cheney's daughter and decides to adopt twins, so long as she's competent, got a good brain [and understands history] and has a conscience and can stand up to the international elites. It's the latter I worry about. [Btw she's every bit as smart as Bill when it comes to economics and she's her own woman no matter the anti-Billary propaganda.]

Dan, what will you do if you have to live with a woman president who is smart and whom you think is lesbian? There's always the French Foreign Legion -- I think they're still around. I'd be tempted to vote for her as payback for all the times I had to think about moving to Canada, or Venezuela, because of Bush. All the straight middle class woman who hated Bush [and love Oprah] will vote for her.
I bet she'll raise cafe standards a whole heap too -- whether it makes a difference or not.

What do you think about emisson standards. Do we, as that old fart Dingell says, give the auto co's a break and not enforce "standards" on consumers or do we tell them, by all mean go set up shop in China and we'll buy our cars on the open market -- I'm for STRINGENT standards [which China is working on] and tell our big three, or is it two now, bye bye, and good luck.

George Mc.

Good points -- except for liking Reagan. I couldn't stand him but I guess to each his own in the likeability and lovable department.

bin Laden: Again, we were friends with his family before "he" became an enemy. We liked him pretty much when he was training "freedom fighters" for afghanistan.


Mitch R.

Voodoo and trickle down economics -- history has managed not to forget those facts. What will the history books say about Bush's policies on the economy -- perhaps good times for the "haves" and the "have more's"? And, tax fairies paid for everything.

Somebody's been making a hog of himself at the Bushworship Kool-aid container.

Trickle down economics stems from the early 1950's when we were the only Western country whose industrial infrastructure had not been smashed and it was accurate to say that whatever was good for General Motors was good for the United States. That was no longer true by the time Reagan came to power, money was being left in the hands of America's economic elite which was investing it overseas -- not in America. As a consequence the economic elite was siphoning money out of the American market and depositing it elsewhere. But it did not help "elsewhere" because it was going into the hands of the economic elite in third-world countries. When Bush II came along, he reintroduced the trickle down with a vengeance -- by that time, however, nearly all of our manufacturing had been wiped out and most of the money was being invested overseas. That is why you have a booming stockmarket, but a still vanishing American middle class, and mass misery among the American poor.

MIssy ... I welcome a woman president as I would any man, provided that they're competent and show some integrity. I do believe that Ms. Clinton is competent, but I have no confidence in her -- or her husband's integrity.

Clark ... no ... unlike you, my opinions are based on observations. They may be wrong, but they're honest, based on what I've seen, read and heard. Right away you probably assume that I get all my information from Fox, Conservative radio, etc.

If you think that you have no idea about me and pleast don't presume to.

BTW, Missy ... I was making no assumption about your age. I was just saying that I was too young to say anything about Ike from personal memory.

Keep the comments coming! If we keep talking then we're also listening

Daniela ... you can certainly weigh in here. I love to hear all perspectives.