Letters to the Editor
rtf100
Published Letters: 181 Editor's Choice: 8
-
HRC and Watergate
[Read the article: What Hillary won't say about torture]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The sense I get is that HRC will replace Bush and, as the major control-freak that she is, the following will be inevitable during the first 100 days (1) Bill will be banished to NY and told to stay there for the next 8 years (2) the other "Bill", newly-elected VP Bill Richardson, will be told to get lost.. a nice way of saying "thank you" for delivering 80% of the latino vote and (3) any brave Dem, or journalist for that matter, who opposed her (Majesty) during the election will be "toast". She will be surrounded by sycophants and "yes" men/women that will remind us, not of Bush, but of Nixon.
If you are expecting a return to the nostalgic days of Bill Clinton when enemployment was at 2%, DOW up 50%, housing prices started their climb, nobody gets killed fighting a six month war, welfare queens told they had to work, the worst news from the middle east was some stone-throwing kid being chased by rubber bullets, NONE OF THIS is going to repeat itself in the NEXT 8 years. The issues confronting #44 will make the issues of the 90's pale in comparison. Out of both necessity and personal preference or style, HRC will behave more like Nixon and there will be no Watergate tapes or witnesses to testify against her. Maybe we should be careful what we wish for.
-
Hold on...Joan
[Read the article: Schumer: Arrogance or impotence?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan,
Why are you so sure that abortion is not murder? Roe v. Wade decided that abortion was legal but who declared that it was morally safe to have an abortion? You have been ranting all week about the evils of torture, waterboarding, lawlessness of the Bushies, etc. etc. but you have not squared the morality of abortion with the very evils that you are accusing others of being party to.
-
I really don't care
[Read the article: Waterboarding is not simulated drowning -- it is drowning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Quite frankly, I really don't care if the CIA uses "enhanced techniques" or renditions on al-Qaeda prisoners. I don't get teary-eyed over some m-f who deliberately killed 3,000 innocent people in 20 minutes in the name of god. Only the lefty Salon types want to "feel the pain" of the m-f terrorists. This is nasty stuff all around and there is no room for sentimentality.
By the way, when Hillary is president, she will not outlaw waterboarding, so get real.
-
No Moral equivalence
[Read the article: Waterboarding is not simulated drowning -- it is drowning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hey Anon,
Your cleverness exposes the main contradiction in your argument. You are implying a moral equivalence that simply does not exist. The facts don't support that view at any level.
There is no moral equivalence between how the US handles enemy prisoners versus how al-Qaeda has handled or would handle US prisoners at any level. Ironically, If there was such an equivalence at this basic level of understanding on how to treat POW's or the fair exchanging of prisoners between elements of the Islamic world and the West, 9/11 probably would never have happened in the first place.
That is why I find lefties like yourself having a hissy fit over waterboarding to be annoying because it is less about the presumed evils perpetuated by the CIA and more about how morally superior the left has now become, particularly approaching an election year.
As I said in my last post, HRC has been surprisingly quiet on this issue which leads me to believe that she will change nothing when she assumes office. She obviously is satisfied that the US does not torture prisoners as a matter of policy, so let's just drop the hissy fits and move on.
-
Re:FernC
[Read the article: It's just 2,501 days too late]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are so typical of the usual Salon reader that says Bush is the worst president ever and that Al Gore is now the second coming. If Al Gore is so freakin great, how in the world did the 2000 election even get to be so close such that there was a claim that Bush stole it. Your analysis is at best lame. The real reason why Al Gore is not Pres Al Gore today is primarily the Bill Clinton indiscretions that caused just enough people to reconsider the merits of a Bush presidency versus a continuation of the Clinton years. That, plus a poorly run campaign by Al Gore caused the race to actually be close. By all measures, that race should have been a 10 point advantage for Gore, all things considered, but Al Gore couldn't even carry his home state. George W. Bush was elected on the coattails of his father just like HRC is trying to do the same thing in 2008
-
Hipocrisy, as usual
[Read the article: Stop the New York Times Op-Ed food fight!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As expected, Joan forgets about Democratic candidates pandering to African-Americans and how EVERY Democratic candidate ASSUMES that they will get 90% of the Black vote, but they do very little other than pay lip service to Black issues once in office. Maybe Blacks should wake up and smell the roses because the Dems take their support for granted. Everybody plays the race card in national politics because that is how the electorate gets parsed by the pros.
By the way, not every non-Democrat is a racist, and Joan knows better than to say that.
-
Gimme a break, Joan
[Read the article: The Giuliani code]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan,
You are trashing Giuliani for some of his un-Catholic-like virtues and potentially some bad genes in his family, but what would you say about JFK? JFK's father was a Wall Street crook and a public servant (first head of the SEC), a major womanizer and a Catholic. Joseph Kennedy even supported appeasement to Hitler and FDR had to remove him as ambassador to Britain. So what exactly is your point?