I am startlingly aware that the Iraq conflict is but one piece of the terrorism problem. Russian schools, Madrid trains , shoe bombers …I don’t really want to continue, but some people feel the need to make the Iraq War and terrorism in general one and the same in voters’ minds.
(Also, to defend myself and my somewhat politically-addled mind, the Iraqi conflict seems to be the only bit of terrorism that Bush has been addressing lately. I don’t read every single article in the paper, but I never heard anything about Bush touching on the Russian school hostages, saying what a terrible tragedy it was or anything in that manner.)
I did a teensy bit (read: minuscule speck) of research on the environmental plans from Bush, and frankly, I can see why there’s been a bit of an increase in environmental protests in the last few years. There was an article in the Times on a plan by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services to eliminate the amount of federally designated critical habitat for the bull trout in Montana. Now, I don’t know a whole lot about bull trout, other than what I read in the article, but when someone says it’s a GOOD THING that they are eliminating all protection for the habitat of an endangered species, that smells a little fishy to me (pardon the pun). Re-reading the article, I wondered how much the US Fish & Wildlife is saving the government by this elimination of protection for streams and lakes. (I’m trying to learn, but it’s getting frustrating. Too much information.)
Respond
Back to top