|
Grammar, logic, punctuation whatever.
I've read the Republic for nearly 35 years, fully expected them to endorse Commander Bunnypants, but their logic in doing so defies explanation. I also wanted to go into domestic and fiscal policy, but it had already become too long, IMHO.
Any comments, critical or otherwise, are welcome and will be seriously considered. I want to make as much impact as possible.
Thanks in advance!
After more than 35 years as an Arizona Republic reader I have cancelled my subscription after your half-hearted and entirely illogical endorsement of the election of George W. Bush for President.
If this is the direction we need for the war in Iraq, may God have mercy on us. Our leadership in Iraq believes they are still fighting Saddam Hussein's army, when the reality is we are fighting insurgents determined to defend themselves and their turf at whatever cost is required. Our armed forces were ill-equipped and ill-trained to fight a conventional war, much less a war of citizens-turned-warriors defending their homeland, far more determined than Saddam's army ever was.
How, in good conscience, can your editors print this particular line nad still manage to eke out an endorsement for the continuation of current Iraq policy:
"Obviously, Bush has made serious errors in judgments regarding Iraq. Appalling weaknesses in planning served to hamstring Iraqi reconstruction and gave the terrorists their opportunity to wreak havoc."?
It simply defies conventional logic.
I fully expected an endorsement of George W. Bush. But your twisted logic in doing so defies explanation and does nothing to instill confidence in your editorial staff. Other major papers have been unable to endorse Mr. Bush's opponent; instead have chosen to make no endorsement whatsoever, the only responsible choice for those unable to endorse Mr. Kerry.
|