writers to bush

Stephen King, Amy Tan, Dennis Lehane, and Wally Lamb are the signatories of another “Earth to Bush” letter, this one a full-page ad in the New York Times.
But you know the Administration’s position on this. Bush “appreciates societies in which people can express their opinion.” So long as he doesn’t have to actually listen.

Link via MobyLives.


6 Responses to “writers to bush”

  1. Big John Says:

    Dear Moorish Girl,
    I see you have seen fit to remove my earlier comments under the “Salam in Bagdad” post. I had thought you would attempt to refute my opinions, but apparently you found it easier to just delete me.

    Interesting. You claim Bush won’t ‘listen’, but you ain’t got the guts of your own convictions to confront me directly. You seem to typify the traditional gutless liberal.

    BTW, the 1st ammendment guarantees the right to SPEAK, not the right to be HEARD. That means you cannot FORCE people to listen when you speak. The day that becomes a requirement, then liberty is truly dead.

    I am starting my stopwatch now, to see how long it takes you to expunge these words. Tick tick tick…

  2. Assamite Says:

    “Gutless liberals”

    You would think it takes guts to oppose an unjust war, but no.

    And frankly, THE GOVERNMENT *HAS* TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE. It’s their frickin’ job as representatives.

  3. moorishgirl Says:

    BigJohn: I didn’t delete anything. You posted under “Coping Skills” and your comment’s still there.

  4. Big John Says:

    I stand corrected, and I apologize. (me and my big mouth)

    To ‘Assamite’:

    “And frankly, THE GOVERNMENT *HAS* TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE. It’s their frickin’ job as representatives.”

    You’re wrong. It behooves them to listen, because they must face elections, but they are not required to do so. If they were, then whoever screamed the loudest would get to run the country.

    You are equating ‘listening’ with ‘obeying’, two very different things. Clinton may have listened to conservatives, but he did not obey their wishes (except for NAFTA).

    Also, I would argue that our reps ARE listening,
    considering that a majority of this country supports the war. Would you prefer that they ‘listen’ to the minority, and flout the wishes of the majority?

    I have studied Iraq in depth, and I don’t think most folks realize the true horror of living under the system of control built by Saddam and his servants. The partying has already begun over there, tearing down all those hateful banners of Saddam’s big puss. It’s russia all over again.

    From the reporting on NPR, it now appears that this thing will be even less damaging to Iraq than we hoped. Practically no one will fight for that scum. When the big crime boss is going down, he has no ‘friends’. (except for non-Iraqi liberals)

    Sure there will be problems, lots. But nothing like the one we are removing.

  5. Dean Esmay Says:

    There is a certain presumption that some folks have that if someone would only listen to them, they would change their behavior.

    It is as if no rational person could possibly disagree.

    Why would you not presume that the President has read the letter, found that he disagreed, and moved on?

    That’s life in a free society. People disagree. It is terribly easy to claim that you have all the answers, and that those who disagree with you are somehow evil or perverse. But in the end, there is nothing liberal about that. Liberalism begins, first and foremost, with respecting the right of dissent–and that includes folks who dissent from the dissenters.

  6. moorishgirl Says:

    No presumptions. Just sarcasm. Enjoy.

  • Twitter

  • Category Archives

  • Monthly Archives