I would much rather check the sources instead of reading straight from the book, but there are more important topics at stake, and I'll take your word for it.
Coulter questions why people who have been victims of a tragedy are able to be so cheerful and un-remorseful in all of these public appearences and interviews.
And my question is, how can an administration still be so supportive of a war, which has been so destructive? How can they continue to make public appearances with the same face, same strategy, same message as before? Bush has expressed distaste for the direction the war's heading, but Cheney and Rice are still both very strong, stick to the plan, regardless of the price.
Expecially with the popularity of the war among the American people reaching all time low's everytime you turn around. With the war being in favor of the minority, can we still claim that our leaders represent the American public to it's fullest?
I understand there still is a group in this country in favor of this war that we're in. But can't considerations be made? When a bipartisan group arranges to make changes for the good of the war, and most, if not all of its recommendations are disregarded by the administration, and an entirely different course is taken, can we afford to not ask ourselves, "maybe this is the wrong idea". I don't know, food for thought.
