Echoing blondeatlast, a LTTE campaign against Republic Bush endorsement?

[Bossy Monkey]

Yet another in the endless stream of Worst. Endorsements. Ever:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/1017sun1-17elx.html
Recapture the spirit
Re-electing George W. Bush is the best answer to a nation's questions

Oct. 17, 2004 12:00 AM

The essential question of the 2004 presidential election is what will become of Iraq. And the essential answer is that it must be transformed into a peaceful and free nation.

Domestic policy is important, certainly, and there is much to do.

The health care system is in critical condition. Immigration must be resolved with a commitment to decency, humanity and finality. The listing ship of Social Security must be righted. And the appointment of new Supreme Court justices - the stealth issue of the 2004 campaign - looms in the shadows. advertisement

But all domestic issues pale before the resolution of the war in Iraq, which, right or wrong, defines this election for a huge percentage of voters. It should surprise no one that "security moms" are the swing voters of 2004. America is at war.
(more; amazingly, it gets worse)

I note in passing that while googling for a link, I found they had endorsed Lieberman in the primary. Nuff said?

[blondeatlast]

1. I wrote on on Monday, I have yet to see it in print, though.

Like the idea though.

I KNEW they would endorse him, but the way they rationalized it was insane! Here's my LTTE, since it has yet to be published:

After more than 35 years as an Arizona Republic reader I have cancelled my subscription after your half-hearted and entirely illogical endorsement 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 may have defeated Saddam's army, but were ill-equipped and ill-trained to fight against 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 and 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."?

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 unwilling to endorse Mr. Bush's opponent; instead have chosen to make no endorsement whatsoever, the only responsible choice for those unwilling to endorse Mr. Kerry.