SAN DIEGO -- Democrats, especially those with presidential ambitions, think they're being so clever. They have devised a line of argument they believe will help them benefit politically from President Bush's troubles in Iraq. But it turns out they aren't so clever after all. What they've come up with stands a good chance of backfiring and doing Democratic candidates more harm than good. Even though Iraq seems to be a huge liability for the president and the Republicans, it's possible that the war will eventually hurt the Democrats as much as anyone. That's a shame.
President Bush, speaking before a supportive audience at the U.S. Naval Academy, said Tuesday that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is about to change. Facing growing dissatisfaction on Iraq from within and outside of his political party, Bush all but admitted to mistakes in Iraq Wednesday in his latest defense nearly 2½ years after he declared victory. Bush acknowledged Wednesday that U.S. has suffered setbacks and less than desired results in training Iraqi forces.
A line is forming outside the Iraq confessional. It consists of Democratic presidential aspirants -- Where's Hillary? -- who voted for the war in Iraq and now concede that they made a "mistake." Former Sen. John Edwards recently did that in a Washington Post op-ed article and Sen. Joseph Biden uttered the "M" word Sunday on "Meet The Press." "It was a mistake," said Biden. "It was a mistake," wrote Edwards. Yes and yes, says Cohen. But it is also a mistake to call it a mistake. Both senators have a point, of course.
The Bush administration is partly responsible for declining poll numbers and the growing public disapproval of the war in Iraq. Instead of responding immediately to questions concerning the reasons for the war and the honesty of top-level members of the administration, it allowed these allegations to fester until they became accepted, in many quarters, as fact.
In regard to the marriage amendment issue, I find it ironic that there are those who are asking Sen. Dean Johnson to "be the leader you were elected to be" by letting the people vote. Isn't this a contradiction? How is putting an issue to the vote of the people being a leader? Is our system of government a direct democracy or a representative democracy? If some are so eager to have the people decide, why not get rid of the Legislature altogether?
The significance of the bird flu danger shocked many of the Minnesota business and health care leaders attending a meeting Tuesday in St.
A letter by Patricia Carter Harding published Nov. 18 was inadvertantly edited. The final sentence of the letter should have read "The constant support of the New Testament is great because it keeps telling you that with your choice of Jesus Christ comes the best fire insurance you will ever have."
Hats off from Donna Rime to all involved in the Willmar Senior High School musical, "South Pacific." It was a spectacular performance.
WASHINGTON -- Decades ago, Walter Reuther, the storied head of the United Auto Workers union, was taken on a tour of an automated factory by a Ford Motor Company executive. Somewhat gleefully, the Ford honcho told the legendary union leader: "You know, not one of these machines pays dues to the UAW." To which Reuther snapped: "And not one of them buys new Ford cars, either." The historian William L.
INDIANAPOLIS -- Indiana likes having the nation's highest portion of workers -- 20 percent -- in manufacturing, so five days before Delphi, the Michigan-based automobile parts manufacturer, entered bankruptcy, Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican who believes that "conservatism can be active," called Delphi. He praised Indiana as a paradise for even more Delphi operations than are already there. Michigan's Democratic governor, Jennifer Granholm, responded to Delphi's travails differently, denouncing Delphi's executives, Washington and globalization.