Letters to the Editor
bloomsbury
Published Letters: 406 Editor's Choice: 5
-
what a joke
[Read the article: More about race and the Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Can anyone explain to me why Diebold would support Hillary Clinton? This ludicrous tale is an attempt to de-legitimize Hillary Clinton's win in New Hampshire put around by people who, believe me, know exactly how to steal an election. Because they did it. The idea that working women support Hillary Clinton is extremely unpalatable to these people because they know that between 65 and 70% of Americans are actually working class, in spite of the right's line that the American middle class stretches from sea to shining sea. If working class women close ranks behind Hillary Clinton she'll win. I'm sure there ARE plans in place to steal the Presidential election. In fact several of these plans have been discussed on Salon. None of them come from the Clinton camp. They come, instead, from the usual suspects. The Republicans, in other words. As for Clinton on Meet the Press: if a man had made these comments there would have been no mention of 'temper'. Clinton was simply making her case. Any politician would have done the same. The points she made were all valid and it's typical that commentators admit the points she made were valid and then say, 'but she should have done it differently'. Like a man? Or like a doormat? Take your pick. For the brainwashed, nothing Clinton does will ever be done the right way but working class people know who their friends are and given the social and economic realities of working class life in America they also know it's literally a matter of life and death for them who occupies the white house. When Bill Clinton said 'It's the economy stupid' they knew exactly what he was talking about. That's why he got elected twice. That's why Hillary Clinton said 'You campaign in poetry but you govern in prose'. Barack Obama is very poetic but for those who want substance, bread and butter issues, he lacks prose. Women are very pragmatic. They want their children clothed, fed and educated. Regardless of race. That's why Bush had to steal the election in 2000. How different it would all be if he hadn't. No 9/11, no war in Iraq, no 'War on Terror', no Guantanamo Bay, no planned war against Iran, no unfair tax cuts, Al Gore would have signed the Kyoto agreement and the world wouldn't be eight years behind in its attempts to deal with climate change, America would have a surplus instead of an historically unprecedented deficit and changes would have been made in health care and education that were to the benefit instead of the detriment of the electorate. The fact is, Hillary Clinton doesn't need to steal any election. The Republicans do, because after what Bush and Cheney have done, they're unelectable and they know it.
-
puzzling matters
[Read the article: Ask al-Qaida]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What would I like to ask Al Qaida? I would love to know why the CIA 'actively assisted' (John Cooley, 'Unholy Wars')an Egyptian terrorist, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahmen, to enter America in 1990 even though he was wanted for terrorism by his own government. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed, a textbook bombing according to the CIA manual on such bombings, and SOAR was arrested, charged with conspiracy and given a long sentence. When and if he ever gets out he will be deported and then locked up by the Egyptians. I would really like to know what Al Qaida knows about this. I would also like to know why they think the US State Department refused to have anything to do with the two men the Sudanese government had arrested in 1998 in connection with bombings of US embassies in East Africa. Repeated attempts to pass these men on to America for questioning were rejected. The Sudanese then 'angrily' released the men. They later turned out to be bin Laden operatives. Does Al Qaida think this is strange behaviour on behalf of the State Department/CIA? What does Al Qaida think was behind the State Department/CIA's rejection of the Sudanese government's offer, in the years leading up to the 9/11 attacks, of a huge intelligence database of information on bin Laden and more than 200 of his operatives, complete with biographies and photos! There were also thick folders giving detailed information on Al Qaida's financial dealings all over the world. Does Al Qaida know where this money trail would have led? Or should I assume that the CIA knew all about the money trail and knew that eventually it would lead back to them or their operatives? Yes, indeed. So many questions and so few answers. What, for example, does Al Qaida make of the fact that the US's own definition of terrorism accords pefectly with the US's definition of 'low intensity warfare', America's official preferred modus operandi in Iraq and Afghanistan and, in fact, all over the world? Here's the US code in army manuals: An act of terrorism means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or ANY STATE, or that would be a criminal violation if commited within the jurisdiction of the United States or ANY STATE and (B)appears to be intended
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population (ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation and coercion or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. (United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct, 19, volume 2, par: 3077, 98 stat. 2707, West Publishing Co, 1984). Now, can Al Qaida see so much as a sliver of daylight between this and what America is doing in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Guantanamo Bay, in its 'extraordinary rendition' program? On this I defer to Al Qaida's superior knowledge. They're the experts. Aren't they?