Re: Scott Wacholtz’s article, “Clearly, Democrats have become Seinfeld Episode”

In reference to Scott Wacholtz’s article claiming that most of what the Democrats have been selling is being anti-Bush, he’s right on. However, Mr. Wacholtz appears to have a problem with understanding and/or interpreting the whole situation that is unfolding before our eyes. Of course, in a field of 10 candidates, you have to appeal to the people that do not approve of George W. Bush. How do you do this? By saying how much you disapprove of him and why. Plain and simple. Admittedly, the Democratic contenders could definitely afford to cut their field of candidates in half. However, the legitimate ones have all stated their viewpoints and given reasons for these standpoints. Howard Dean and a few others realize and have the integrity to acknowledge that the war in Iraq and the reasons for rushing to war were nothing short of a steaming pile of ibis feces, which is what most Americans have not been able to realize. Bush acknowledged there was no Iraqi involvement with 9/11. Bush has not acknowledged where all those Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are. We’ve been had. The world has been duped. Furthermore, we won’t even acknowledge what we did. The Brits have been on Tony Blair like a sorority girl on Sean Taylor. They have investigations and attempts to understand just how such a huge blunder could have occurred. That blunder being invading a country, ruining it, and lying about why you were there in the first place. Why aren’t we pissed off? Did anyone see Bush at the United Nations recently? What is this guy’s problem? Maybe he doesn’t realize that the word “United” actually means something. As far as I am concerned, the democrats can bash Bush as much as they want. At least when they speak about what a steaming pile of Ibis feces he is, they aren’t lying to the American people.
Moises Jacobs III
Video-film major

Scott, you should be careful what you ask for. You wanted a Democratic candidate who stands for something and they gave you one, General Wesley K. Clark. What exactly does he stand for? Well, how long have you got?
Wesley Clark is the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander and Commander in Chief of the United States European Command (helping to save 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing), a Rhodes Scholar, the former Commander in Chief of the United States Southern Command, a West Point Graduate (no.1 in his class), and a recipient of multiple military and civilian awards. In addition to a resume that probably wouldn’t fit on a super computer and more military experience than Bush Sr. and Jr’s administrations combined, he has authored two best selling books in which he eloquently describes his stances on foreign policy in a number of regions. Within one week of announcing his presidential run, he described his national economic policies with resounding certainty. Something the Bush administration has yet to do in three years.
Admittedly, Clark has participated in some Bush bashing. Shame on him. When the Bush campaign gears up to full force I’m sure the ads will only be full of positive affirmations of Dubya’s major accomplishments. Decreased civil liberties, fewer jobs, tax cuts for the rich, an environmental record approved by Capt. Planet himself, and a Middle East so pissed at America that they may stop building McDonalds over there.
Not to scare Bush or anything, but guess where General Clark calls home? A little place called Little Rock, Arkansas. In the campaign of 2004, barring anything unforeseen, such as a brain transplant for our current president, it appears as if they’re going to do it again by nominating Bill Clinton II in the form of one General Wesley K. Clark.
Adam Levin
Senior, Music engineering major