The president and the first lady said the twins weren't public figures, yet here are their figures in public.
The strapless sisters are helping a campaign that's increasingly strapped. Barbara and Jenna, glamming like the Hilton sisters, are in gowns in Vogue, and in vogue on the trail, giving Dad some much needed cover by uncovering their shoulders.
Is there a point to this drivel? I have difficulty understanding how the Bush daughters campaigning for their father is any more contemptible than the plethora of celebrities stumping for Kerry. Furthermore, I can't think of one effect his daughters have on Bush's policies. I could attempt to understand your hypocrisy, but that would require a suspension of logic I'm not prepared to attempt. I'll just pretend there was a lapsus calami on your part. It's easier that way.
There was faint support yesterday for Mr. Bush's feint on gay marriage. W. thought he had a bit in the maverick's mouth, but John McCain bit back, bolting over to the Democratic side to help embarrass the president by defeating the constitutional amendment that dare not speak its name. Senator McCain scorned the amendment banning gay marriage as "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." (Well, some Republicans.)
To use McCain's quote as a truism is to admit that the (true) Republican philosophy is superior, as it opposes the amendment. Are you really attempting to do this? Or are you just chronically unaware of the implications of your own statements?
Instead of fleeing to Canada to dodge a war, W. had to flee practically to Canada to defend a war. In the middle of July, the president was campaigning in the middle of nowhere, in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan -- the first president to bother to trek up to Nick Adams country since William Howard Taft.
If you are attempting to offer progressively irrelevant statements as your article goes on, I should congratulate you on a job well done.
Mr. Bush must have left the buck in deer country because the White House keeps passing the blame to the same C.I.A. that Dick Cheney and his Pentagon henchmen leaned on to supply the rationale they needed for the war they were determined to launch.
Can you name another government agency whose information should be consulted for intelligence? The CIA is all we have, and when it makes a mistake, we should rightly blame them. To blame Bush is the apogee of illogic. Do you blame consumers for being defrauded by corporations? The same principle applies.
Just because more terrorists are attacking Americans abroad doesn't mean terrorists aren't poised to also attack us at home. And in fact, Bush officials keep warning us that terrorists are planning "something big" here, as the acting C.I.A. director, John McLaughlin, said yesterday in a radio interview.
Warnings about potential attacks are apparently inferior to assumptions that they won't attack us again. You want us to be safe, yet you are willing to offer the ipse dixit statement that it is wise to assume terrorists won't attack us. Gee, Maureen Dowd doesn't think terrorist attacks overseas equate to a domestic risk. Let's base our defenses on that impressive discovery! Brilliant!
Many voters think that the president and vice president are unjustifiably putting lives at risk by going to war with a false premise and creating more terrorists. But many voters are apparently dithering because they are too wary of the alternative to boot out Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney.
Or...maybe they don't find someone who voted for the same war after reading the exact same intelligence as a preferable alternative. We'd have to find someone who can unequivocally rebut CIA intelligence. I suppose that's you?
The nub of this election is that John Kerry has so far failed to convince voters that he'll do what Mr. Bush promised to do and hasn't: go after Osama and Al Qaeda and destroy them. Unless Mr. Kerry can make that sale, Americans face not a false dilemma, but a real one.
Special operations forces are currently in Afghanistan and Pakistan searching for bin Laden. They have been since the fall of the Taliban. It apparently is necessary to inform you of this development.
I confess my organization often finds itself defending some of your policy stances. There are myriad problems with the Iraq war, I would agree. I also rabidly oppose the marriage amendment. However, your piece was so terribly ignorant that it required a rebuttal. You are clearly unaware of certain facts. Spewing vitriol at Bush doesn't make you, or (our) views, look intelligent. Calling his policies illogical while offering pejorative paralogisms isn't a wise idea. This should help you realize this.
