Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsLong Beach

Presidents' Shortcomings: When Personal Is Political

January 25, 2003

Re "Propelled Toward War by a Peevish President," Commentary, Jan. 19: Richard Reeves says publicly what so many of us citizens have suspected. We now have back-to-back presidents who are missing a "chip," so to speak. Bill Clinton, with his infantile needs of sexual gratification at any cost, and George W. Bush, with his anger at being ... what? Not the son his father had wished for, not the natural leader his brother is, nearly always the buffoon of the business world, no recognition by his peers (world of wealth and privilege) as something exceptional? God knows how much the American people will suffer because of his "disorder."

Reeves is correct. Bush is consumed, but with what and why? His mission, as he tells his daddy, is all-important. But to whom and for what? The majority of this country looks at this man with great reservations. He neither knows nor cares, as long as he is the center of attention and control. The more dramatic his actions (like a kid), the more attention he receives. As Reeves said, "This is one scary Texan." I say vote the guy out before he consumes the world with his disability.

Gene Geary

Garden Grove

*

This morning I read to my wife the Bush quote that Reeves included in his commentary: "See, I don't have to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president." She responded indignantly that because he was elected, he owed an explanation to the people who elected him.

I suppose this means that at least five of the members of the U.S. Supreme Court will get to know what he's really up to.

John DeGrazia-Sanders

Ojai

*

I felt a cold shiver reading the words Bush said in December 2000: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier. Just as long as I'm the dictator."

Then I read Jan. 21 about the recent change in regulations governing wilderness roads and RS 2477 claims and how previously untrammeled areas will lose their former protection, something pushed for with great vigor by this same president. Your article said, "The new rule removes public comment and judicial review from the process.... " Is anyone else feeling that chill?

Lawrence

Schaumburg-Hinson

Long Beach

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|