Letters to the Editor
JackSparx
Published Letters: 403 Editor's Choice: 16
-
@brunhilde and lateagain Re: Obama should go after McCain, not Clinton
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's tough week]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think the race has changed brunhilde now, because 1. Clinton has lost except in her own mind, people know that and 2. McCain is stumbling, bumbling and there is theatre to be had in attacking him. 3. A democrat needs to be an alternative voice on the latest Iraq situation and that can't be warhawk Hillary. That's true even if Obama agrees with McCain about any measures to be taken now (and they might reasonably agree).
I'm divided lateagain, on the cost Obama paid for responding to Clinton and Ferraro's racebaiting. I think maybe he had to face up and shame her once (and dude de he ever).
Now though, he's had his showdown, and it's time to be presidential.
Clinton has become like the Church Lady in SNL re-runs. It's no use engaging her directly, she'll make a fool of herself quite nicely.
-
Loops and loopiness
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's tough week]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm probably the only one awake RealityCounts, but my answer won't be quite what you want.
The media played Rev. Wright's clips much the same as you watch or hear them on youtube, well, their source was youtube (and youtube is media). My point is, this rhythm loops in all of our heads, like music:
Some say God bless American
no no no god dammmn America!
Now, I don't want God to damn America anymore than the next guy. I'm sure Obama's position on God damning America is also one of opposition. In fact the Rev. Wright probably would probably prefer a different sort of heavenly intervention than brimstone and fire and all that mess.
Hyperbole. An exaggerated _opinion_. People get it. And I've heard all kinds of people enjoy repeating the rhythm of the power of saying it. It's a loop, you play it back, add a beat, and dance to it. And of course, it's Obama's preacher and not Obama himself. If you make fun, you are making fun of Wright.
Hillary's sniper fire comments flew out of her _own_ mouth, again and again. Exaggerated _facts_. The sniper claims are simply loopy not a loop. Nuts. Saying them once and dropping the claim when it was debunked, that might have flown beneath the radar. But over and over again? You can't dance to those comments, you can only laugh. And laugh sadly, considering she has used the comments to deflect attention to her vote on Iraq, where real bullets are flying.
-
@RealityCounts
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's tough week]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah, but how can I vote for a mother who would expose her daughter to sniper fire?
-
Chelsea Clinton : Secret Agent?
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's tough week]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Clinton lied, but not about the snipers. They were very real. But telling the truth exposed the true role of her "daughter" Chelsea. That was no typical 16 year old American girl. That was a highly trained secret service agent on a mission to intercept incoming bullets with her own body.
Yes, Hillary misspoke. She should have never exposed Chelsea anymore than Cheney should have outed Plame.
Luckily, the head of Clinton's Bosnian security detail, a man we like to call Sinbad, quickly invented a cover story. It was a simple affair to doctor the video footage to show Clinton smiling and greeting the troops.
But, if you look closely, you'll notice that Clinton is looking untypically, well, hot. That's not Clinton. That's her body-double: Sheryl Crow.
So Clinton didn't lie about the snipers. She had to lie to protect Chelsea's cover. And we can forgive that.
Because after all, everyone knows that the Serbian word "Bosnia" actually means "grassy knoll."
-
CIA Director Gen. Hayden on Meet the Press
[Read the article: Michael Mukasey's tearful lies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I know some people think Hayden is a corrective, but he came across as quite the creep this morning with Russert.
I hope Greenwald explores Hayden's replies that torture is OK if the Atty General says its OK. But, by the way, CIA officers will now have taxpayer-paid liability insurance.
You know, just in case the accidently rendition somebody off to a Syrian torture chamber or something.
-
Typo
[Read the article: Why John Edwards hasn't endorsed Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This article neglects to mention "Jeremiah Wright." That must have been an unintentional oversight.
Edwards endorsement does matter because he is a superdelegate so that's one vote, he influences other superdelegates, and doesn't he still have a few real delegates to release?
I think he'll hold off for personal calculations, and that explains why the Edwards are spinning themselves as above both remaining candidates. And yeah, the reason is kingmaker. If he was superlucky the difference would come down to the small number of votes he holds.
I really think the superdelegates who haven't committed yet are just scared or selfish. If they haven't figured out who to support yet they are even dumber than Bush has made them look these past seven years.
-
@Patriot on Torture Insurance
[Read the article: Michael Mukasey's tearful lies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have to find out more about that idea, but what struck me immediately was to ask how the insurance companies would calculate risk? Wouldn't they have to know the secret details of what the agents were doing and compare them to the legal framework, and wouldn't that mean that private contractors would have access to secret methods, if not sources and information?
Seems like a huge liability to national security to protect officers from liability for breaking the law. And don't they already have extensive immunity?
Practically speaking, that Canadian guy who was tortured in Syria didn't get anywhere with his lawsuit anywyay. I suppose it remains to be seen what other torturees (like Padilla) will get.
If the CIA can get insurance to cover it for wrongdoing, can we get insurance to protect us from the CIA and federal government?