Greg Bean's assertions about Bush unfair
Ivoted twice for George Bush and, while I do not agree with him on all the issues, I would prefer him over any of the Republicans running for 2008. And I would certainly vote for him over any Democrat.

But I have to laugh at some of the reasons why people don't like him. The reasons for Executive Editor Greg Bean's hatred for Bush, for instance, are laughable and absurd, the chief ones being that he doesn't like Bush's "smirk" and that "lots of us believe he lost the popular vote and then stole the election in Florida," according to Bean's Red State-Blue State column last week.

Greg, what if I said, "I'm not reading Bean's column ever again. I don't like his headshot!" Wouldn't that be silly?

And saying that Bush stole the election is simply revisionist history that must be responded to.

The fact is, Bush lost the popular vote nationally but won Florida by 539 votes, winning the Electoral College vote - the one that matters. Yes, Greg, he did!

Just about all of the far-left newspapers in America went to Florida and counted the votes themselves after the election was over. They all came up with the same number: Bush beat Al Gore by 539 votes in Florida.

Yes, it was a close election, the closest in American history. But Gore lost. Don't you think it's time for liberals to get over it?

Instead of going the sour grapes route, why not ask yourself why the good people of Tennessee - Gore's home state - did not back their then-senator back in 2000? The people who knew Gore best said, "No way!" when their senator ran for president. Had Tennessee voted for Gore, guess what? Gore beats Bush!

Meanwhile, the people who knew Bush best - the people of Texas, where he is from - voted for him overwhelmingly.

As for Bush's "assault on civil liberties," the Patriot Act has stopped several terrorist attacks in the U.S. since Sept. 11. I'm not crazy about it, but this is theworld we live in now. Besides, no one is listening in on your phone calls to Aunt Meg, Greg! But if you are calling a suspected terrorist in Iraq, you better believe I want the FBI or Secret Service listening in. As any clear-thinking American would.

Of course, if there were no PatriotAct and we were hit again, Bush-haters like Bean would immediately whine, "What is Bush doing to stop terrorism?"

Bush cannot win with any of these people.

Go ahead and disagree with the War on Terror all you want, but thank God we have a president who has a backbone and goes after these terrorist thugs while ignoring polls. The polls are just a long-term reflection of what the Bush-hating negative press spouts day after day anyway. Weak presidents listen to the people and let them dictate his policy. That's not leadership. Strong presidents lead the country. Bush has been put in charge of the country - twice, Greg- and he is leading in very turbulent times. He is not following the American people, he is leading them.

As far as the U.S. losing 4,000 servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was a war that most everyone agreed with at the time, including many left-wingers in the House and Senate. Of course, the moment a war gets bloody, the left wants to put its tail between its legs and get out. And to say that anyone "lied" to get us into war, like you accuse Bush of, is simply propaganda.

You're right about a couple of things. Donald Rumsfeld had to go. Ever since he left, the tide of the war in Iraq has shifted in our favor. You were right on Harriet Meyers for the Supreme Court. I don't know what Bush was thinking on that one, but at least she was never nominated. I also disagree with Bush on his (mis)handling of illegal immigrants. Why we haven't plugged up our borders after Sept. 11 is beyond me.

Bush is far froma perfect president, but he is not nearly as bad as propagandists like Bean say he is.

Joe Hofmann Colonia section of Woodbridge