Why is it that Mortimer B. Zuckerman and the media consistently refer to President Bush as extremely partisan ("intense partisanship," as he put it) but rarely refer to Democrats this way ["A Failure of Politics," October 1]?
Zuckerman points this out, yet the rhetoric is reserved for President Bush. If you'll refer back to Bush's first 100 days in office, you will see a president who came to Washington, D.C., intending to work with Democrats, continuing his fine record of doing this in Texas. It quickly became apparent, as it had been to most conservatives, that the Democrats had no intention of working with President Bush. Zuckerman's piece asked that Democrats and Republicans work together. Perhaps that could be aided by those with the power of the pen referring to Democrats as partisan so that they too can be called to task for it. It is simply a matter of balance.
Zuckerman's argument that a U.S. pullout from Iraq would unnerve our allies is just what we heard at about this stage of the Vietnam War. Southeast Asia was going communist. Now we have trade delegations in Hanoi, and Thailand is a major tourist spot. It is not our God-given duty (or right) to impose our form of government on any other country. The Iraqis have a right to determine their own destiny, even if that looks like civil war.
President Bush should have taken a page from President Franklin D. Roosevelt's playbook and adopted a policy of shared sacrifice in conducting the war against Iraq. Unfortunately, Bush made it "his" war instead of "our" war, and that was a huge mistake.
The partisanship of republi-cans and Democrats is a tragedy. Both are doing a great job of destroying the nation.