Letters to the Editor
William Timberman
Published Letters: 3298 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Hiatt's follies
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt and the "Triumphant Top Gun"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]a president who wins a war -- whether you agreed with that war or not -- pretty much gets to greet returning troops wherever he wants. -- Fred Hiatt
Or how he wants. How about greeting them with Mayo clinic level health care, and a new GI bill? How about zero-interest mortgage loans, and college scholarships for their kids?
How about:
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan -- to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.
And for those who didn't make it back, how about:
...we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth?
From one Republican war president to another, good advice. Pay the debt we owe.
-
Or at least, Paul,
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt and the "Triumphant Top Gun"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If we're to suffer vanity in our leaders, let them have some recognizable justification for being vain. If GWB isn't absolutely the smallest man we've ever elected as our president, he's surely one of the smaller ones -- in character, if not in codpiece.
I'm not sure we deserve better at this point, you understand, but before I too join the rest of the rubble in the deserts of our imagination, I'd like to be able just once to watch a State of the Union speech without cringing.
-
Count me in
[Read the article: War as reality rather than cartoon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If someone's willing to organize an Abraham Lincoln brigade to defend Canada from this putative ass-whupping, I'm ready to join up. (An old geezer's auxiliary, perhaps?)
-
That is
[Read the article: War as reality rather than cartoon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]help defend Canada. I'm sure our brothers and sisters up north could do a pretty good job of defending themselves without any yankee meddling. They've done it before, after all.
-
A couple of not-so-humble opinions
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt and the "Triumphant Top Gun"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1) On the pictures: I think those who say that using them would be prejudicial are on the right track. Would we judge the value of Stephen Hawking's contribution on the basis of a portrait? Abraham Lincoln's? Emily Dickinson's?
2) On the idea that full citizenship should be reserved to those who served in the military: Do we really think being Spartans is preferable to being Americans? Robert Heinlein was a decent sci-fi novelist, but as a political philosopher, he left a lot to be desired. What's next, Patton's save the fucking for the fighting men?
-
An ancient argument
[Read the article: The right's explicit and candid rejection of "the rule of law"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The defects of democracy, or more properly, of governments based on democratic principles, are clearly visible to anyone who isn't for the moment getting what he wants. The defects of one-man or one-party rule apparently need to be revisited once in a while, particularly by the slow-witted, the fearful, and those ignorant of history.
As for the My Pet Goat principle, such a monarch, or caudillo, or whatever you want to call him, suits some factions better than others. For corporate America, which is principally interested in unconstrained mass-marketing, unfettered access to material resources, and a docile labor force, GWB's lack if stature isn't of concern. One might even argue that his blank stare is their guarantee.
On the other hand, what if one-man rule were embodied in FIdel Castro, or in terms more relevant to our current situation, Hugo Chavez? One imagines that suddenly there there would be a new flush of enthusiasm for the rule of law in corporate boardrooms.
The question of who or what rules is plainly not as relevant to anyone's individual concern as is the question of who benefits from that rule. I'd submit that the greatest good for the greatest number is still a valid principle, politically as well as morally, and that democracy and the rule of law are still the best guarantee of achieving anything resembling that principle in practice.
-
Um...ah...
[Read the article: The right's explicit and candid rejection of "the rule of law"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Law and the President -- in a national emergency, who you gonna call? -- Wall Street Journal
Boastgusters, right?
-
Apologies to the WSJ
[Read the article: The right's explicit and candid rejection of "the rule of law"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dyslexia? In re-reading Glenn's post I realize that the quote in my previous comment should have been attributed to The Weekly Standard. Mansfield in either case, but in my opinion, the editors who publish such stuff should be called to account even more than the authors themselves.