Lame-duck Bush is a bad president

The Democrats I know, contrary to Lawrence Burton's diatribe ("Letter serves up more of the same," Aug. 9), don't believe the worst about the United States, and they have plenty of reasons to question President Bush's ability to lead. They are concerned citizens who have become tired of waiting for something good or intelligent to come out of this administration

Bush has had his chances - the healthy economy he inherited is in shambles; he botched the 9-11 response by not finishing business in Afghanistan before attacking Iraq; more than 1,800 Americans have died (not to mention the wounded) in his war, with no end in sight; he doesn't know what an exit strategy is; he approved the sale of U.S. fighter jets to Pakistan, a military dictatorship that really harbors terrorists; we are no safer now from terrorists than before 9-11; he claims to have the answer for Social Security's impending demise, but can't even get his own party's support; gas prices are at an all-time high, but the energy bill he just signed doesn't even pretend to address the high cost of oil or any long-term strategy to reduce our dependence on it; and he has a dismally low approval rating by all Americans, not just the hateful Democrats.

Should I go on? He is the lamest of ducks.

Bush said that if anyone in his administration leaked information about a covert CIA operative's identity, they would be fired. There's right and there's wrong. It's pretty simple - but, whoa, not so fast. When it was revealed that it might be Karl Rove who did the outing, Bush back-pedaled. Now he says that anyone convicted of divulging the operative's identity will be fired. I guess it's no longer what is morally right or wrong, but what you can get away with. Mr. Bush seems to be moral when it suits him.

Stephen Barrow, Aiken, S.C.