Plain talk, please.

Submitted by Pat (United States), May 23, 2007 at 19:27

"So when looking for the truth you must upend the speeches."

I thought by the last paragraph you had finally said what you thought. I didn't think I had to upend your post in order to find the truth. I took what you said at face value and drew the wrong conclusion.

I didn't read your article before since I was responding to your post, not to what you had said in your article, but I did before responding here.

So what is YOUR opinion?

Bush would be excoriated for saying the truth but you criticized him and Condi for trying to work with the cards they were dealt. They have to be diplomats and you seem to find that objectionable.

The pope dared to quote a medieval pope's words about Islam and was blamed for all the riots that occurred in Europe. A Danish newspaper was criticized for exercising its own freedom of speech.

What do you want Bush to do? If he calls a spade a spade he is considered ignorant or disrespectful of other cultures or just incapable of understanding the complexities of the world. He is accused of seeing things in black and white while the world is composed of infinite shades of gray. If he speaks in roundabout terms or uses political niceties he is guilty of PC doublespeak.

What do you suggest?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".