There was a letter in the AJC bashing Bush (how unusual) for not doing enough to conserve gasoline. The writer says that instead of building new refineries (which would lower the price of gas and prevent runs like we had after Katrina here in the south), Bush should be doing something about the fuel efficiency and availability of SUVs. The fact is, if Americans cared about conservation, they would stop buying SUVs, but they are still buying them in record numbers. Why should Bush make a law against something that American has said they want, time and time again? He cannot, and should not, legislate what we buy.

The next letter writer whines about the creation of Homeland Security and what a waste it was for Bush to create. He neglects to mention the fact that Bush didn't want it, but Congress made him. Then he whines about Bush wanting to use the military for disaster relief (I think that's a bad idea, too, but after all the whining about how everyone stuck in Katrina wasn't saved personally by Bush within the first five minutes, he had to come up with some ideas). But I don't think the "no military in domestic enforcement" thing is in the Constitution, despite the writer's claims.

So basically every letter bashing Bush was based on a misunderstanding of the truth and of how laws work and what laws are supposed to do. I guess they must get their information from the same people that told us there were 10,000 dead in New Orleans and that the Superdome was a rape factory.