Letters to the Editor
casual_observer
Published Letters: 1249 Editor's Choice: 1
-
adnoto
[Read the article: Joe Klein's stirring defense of Lewis Libby]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I fear my earlier comment may have offended you, this was certainly not my intent. Nor was I trying to patronize by explaining things to you. I was simply expressing an opinion. If I was clumsy in doing this, I apologize. I find myself in agreement with what all you say, with the exception of the original comment about Bush's statement and what he meant by it.
And yes, by 'we', I meant our nation collectively, but with our political leadership in the driver's seat. By "many hoped", I was referring to the many leftward pundits and others who told us repeatedly that a midterm Democratic victory was crucial in 'turning things around', or at least halting further damage. Air America was full of this sort of language, for example, for many months running up to the election. There were tons of hopeful blog-talkers as well, of course.
But it has not come to pass, and I'm frankly surprised a bit by the depth of my own disappointment. Republican behavior is one thing. But I was not personally prepared for the Democratic failure (btw, I'm not a Democrat either).
-
Dissenting Opinion
[Read the article: The al-Marri decision]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]GG (or other legal type),
I noted the dissenting opinion at the end of the pdf, and wonder if you read that as well. For us non-lawyers, did you grok the jist of what the dissenting judge said, and do you have time to add your evaluation of that?
Also, in the earlier post you recommended the first eleven pages or so of the pdf, describing what the govt. did to al-Marri. For those not wanting to read the entire pdf, I would add p. 65 through 77, fairly short, and somewhat digestible even to us non-attorneys.
-
AUMF
[Read the article: The al-Marri decision]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you masaccio. That would be nice, but repeal or amendment would not make it through the Senate. Because, as Joe Biden said, we didn't elect enough democratic senators in '06. The majority is not up to the task, at least under its current management.
-
'living' isn't enough
[Read the article: The al-Marri decision]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Tiberius, it is not enough to live. We must live in freedom. That is what the founders perceived, and they are right.
-
Bryan
[Read the article: The al-Marri decision]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't disagree, but tell that to Biden and the other leaders. Biden actually said that--I didn't make it up. The senate majority can't scratch its collective ass without a veto-proof margin. It's not their fault, you see, its the voters fault, for not placing more Democrats in there.
But I'm venting spleen here, and digressing from the post. Enough.
-
Slow Progress
[Read the article: The al-Marri decision]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anon said:
"They [Dems] do make slow progress. Let's try to remember that. The media hasn't mentioned this once today." [provides link to story on subpeonas in DOJ matter].
Let's say the two witnesses come in and say "Yes, we were involved, and it was absolutely political. And yes, it was all about voter suppression and obstructing Lam's prosecution."
What would then happen? Would the majority resolutely march back to the floor demanding another vote of no confidence in DOJ's Smurf General?
I'd argue that compiling a congressional record of wrongdoing and illegality represents progress only if it leads to some form of corrective action. The record being compiled in committee provides the evidence of abuse and justification for corrective measures, but in itself it is not progress.
Given the majority's seeming inability to produce, it remains to be seen if the highly enjoyable DOJ hearings actually will amount to something that can be termed 'progress'.
-
Politico Bias
[Read the article: Sen. Reid's crime]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is interesting that Politico got this story from, apparently, someones other than the liberal bloggers who were on the Reid call. So who else was familiar with the call? One would suppose some of Reid's staff.
If this is the case, Reid's staff should be aware that The Politico should be viewed cautiously as an unbiased source of news and opinion. As has been posted here previously, Ryan (the one mentioned in GG's post) is clearly supportive of the Republican Party, has contributed to it financially, and one would assume is himself republican. The Politico's parent company ownership is also supportive of the GOP and has contributed financially to it.
It is therefore troubling to see staff from the Politico showing up at venues such as C-Span and PBS News Hour in contexts where they are presented as objective journalists. Those responding to questions from Politico staffers should keep in mind that the company ownership and top management are politically biased.
-
Why We'll Attack Iran
[Read the article: The NYT on the administration's "debate" over whether to attack Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1. The Bush Doctrine of preemption has become established as reasonable or at least arguable within the US, in spite of Iraq;
2. Iran is the new Iraq, in that it represents (to Bush) the nessessary nexus of terror-connections and WMDs;
3. The more the US is invested in Iraq, the more likely is an effort to damage Iran in order to defend that investment;
4. Even if the Hydrocarbon Law becomes a reality, Iran can close the oil shipping lanes--and it IS all about oil and geo/petro-power;
5. All the offensive and defensive forces are in place, and can't remain there permanently;
6. The still-intact neocons and certain pro-isreal lobbies are working to bring the attack closer to reality.
The only significant factor running contrary to all the above is the immense unpopularity of this government domestically, and world opinion. Rice's position (if it is indeed described accurately by sources) is simply reflecting world opinion. World opinion represents a weak influence on this government.