Letters to the Editor
casual_observer
Published Letters: 1253 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Arne
[Read the article: What were the pre-2005 "other intelligence activities"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Indeed. That, more than anything else, is what sunk Nixon's boat; without it, he may well have managed to brazen out the storm....."
It just occured to me that an entity like CREW or ACLU could take an advert out in the NYT and WP. One million dollars and free legal defense for any federal employee willing to come forward with information of illegal surveilance on american citizens. Years ago, Deep Throat was free, but everything is more expensive now.
-
The Rapture
[Read the article: The mainstream, sane, serious Joe Lieberman]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am very late to this thread, but it is important to address this issue of the Rapture. As Ms. Jeanne Garofalo has stated, it is important to wear comfortable, loose-fitting clothing in anticipation of that day. And of course, wear sensible shoes.
-
re: Update III
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Abu Smurf's opening statement at the latest Senate Judicial committee hearing was all about the need for FISA-updating, as if it hadn't been updated many times already. His statement was out of context, given what the hearing was actually about, and some senators were offended, naturally.
Wasn't it Rove who said something about always wanting to roll out new products in the Fall? They're a little early, aren't they?
-
@svensker
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Second, it seeks to restore FISA to its original focus on protecting the privacy interests of people inside the United States, so we don't have to obtain court orders to effectively collect foreign intelligence about foreign targets located in foreign locations.
What the hell does THAT mean?
I think it means he's once again misleading the american people. FISA warrants were never required for overseas communications--only if one or both ends of the communication were in US--is that not right?
-
Gaining Separation
[Read the article: What Beltway media stars mean by "centrism" and "extremism"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Going back to the CNN transcript, little attention has been paid to the fact that Edwards was also asked to answer the question, following Obama and Clinton. And I guess if we're going to put this particular piece of media crap under the microscope, we might as well put ALL the crap there, not just part of the crap. This in the interest of full and total crap.
Edwards Bellied-Up-To-The-Bar and Manfully said "uh, they're both right". It was a masterful piece of work, and had the added benefit of being true, I think. (What Sysprog said).
My take is that the press is so hungry for separation between candidates that, if they can't find it in substance, they'll manufacture it. Or excrete it. Whatever.
But I do think there's another thing worth noting regarding "centrism vs. extemism" thing that GG points to. Compare the completely manufactured "extemism" of Obama in this case, and the very real extremism of the one-third of the republican field that raised their hands when asked: "Who here doesn't believe in Evolution?"
Now there's some real extemism. And while this truly bizarre and alarming republican reply was noted by the press, I don't ever recall reading that these guys were "radical", "extreme", "unserious", or any of the other code-words that might suggest that the media had any particular concerns.
The fact that Barak/Hillary raises so much media discussion on an issue of who's experienced and tough, while the republicans skate free of their much more serious lunacy shows a press that lacks mooring, compass, and bearing.
-
Dangers of the Endless Campaign
[Read the article: What Beltway media stars mean by "centrism" and "extremism"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The manufactured dust-up between Obama and Clinton also provides good evidence, I think, that this much-extended campaign adds nothing, in terms of content and substance, to a presidential election. There is nothing that has been said, or learned by the public to date, that could not have been said or learned over a much shorter period of time, much closer to the actual election. Some pundits have remarked that the campaign began too early--and I can't agree more.
There are likely many reasons why very long, very expensive campaigns are not good for our democracy. Perhaps the most obvious is that campaigners cannot devote sufficient time to governing (most are currently serving in elected office).
But I'm also very concered that nearly permanent, year-round presidential campaigning provides ever-increasing opportunities for bribe-money (campaign contributions) to influence the Executive. It also leads to the inevitable temptation to use the machinery of government itself to be harnessed in the service of one party campaign or the other. The apparent Hatch Act violations by the White House political wing in multiple federal agencies (Loreta Doan and DOJ being just the higher-profile examples among *many*)are not occuring in a vacuum. This law-breaking is occuring in response to the ever-increasing demands and temptations of the permanent campaign.
-
@Declaw
[Read the article: What Beltway media stars mean by "centrism" and "extremism"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]our media elites attempt to disguise their actual sneering condescention for the Ordinary American with meaningless, deceptive paeans in their name.
or sometimes they just say "Go Bills!".
-
@dclaw
[Read the article: What Beltway media stars mean by "centrism" and "extremism"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"declawing" my opponents
those were the lines I was thinking along, dclaw, I hope no offense given.
-
The Tar Patch
[Read the article: The leak designed to save Alberto Gonzales]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]GG, the Hayden stuff under (2) is just great, and adds to the great stuff over at Anonymous Liberal (I strongly recommend readers to look at the last 3 or so posts over there, as well as the comments).
In this case, I feel that the NYT article will NOT provide much cover for the Executive. The Congress will continue to follow this in spite of the press, and I hope that committee staffers or senate office staffers are following both you and AL.
Instead, I think this is going to Backfire--big time--on the Administration. The committees need to get "The Mutineers" back, probably in closed session, and nail these issues down. In fact I can't remember that Ashcroft himself has testified yet. Once that is done, I don't see why they can't proceed directly to impeachment of Gonzalez. I don't see that they would require a special prosecutor once it is made clear under oath that he has committed perjury.
But that is all out in the future. For now, thanks for this excellent reporting represented in this piece. Some of your finest work, in my opinion, on a topic of the highest importance, and great complexity. In my opinion, there is no story more important than this one, including Iraq.