ShareThis Page
Buchanan for Bush??? |

Buchanan for Bush???

| Sunday, September 5, 2004 12:00 a.m

The introduction of Bill Steigerwald’s interview with Pat Buchanan claims that Buchanan “is not done causing trouble for the GOP” (“Bush is ‘playing with fire,'” Aug. 28).

That is hard to believe, considering that when Buchanan responded to Steigerwald’s question “Do you want Bush to win?,” he essentially endorsed Bush. It is also hard to believe that after Buchanan’s many tirades against Bush policies that he would not endorse a change to Kerry.

Bush is not a true conservative, as the editor of the American Conservative magazine appears to be, and he has gotten us into a war — “our own Lebanon and own West Bank,” as Buchanan describes it.

It is evident from Buchanan’s companion column, “Swift Boat vets’ final mission” (Aug. 28) that he has been swayed by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Perhaps Kerry used the system to get “cheap medals” the way Bush and Cheney used the system to stay out of harm’s way, but Kerry did it under fire.

If Kerry had the courage of his convictions to demonstrate against a war that most Americans realize was a mistake, why should we and Buchanan hold that against him• And if Kerry told a few white lies after the whoppers that Bush and Cheney have fed us, who is to cast the first stone?

It’s time for a change. The Bush administration has treated us like mushrooms long enough.

Mike Mester
Lower Burrell

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.