Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 360 Editor's Choice: 12
-
rollotomasi
[Read the article: Democratic complicity in Bush's torture regimen]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is not a lame duck Bush administration fighting back. This is the CIA and the rest of the intelligence apparatus having an internal dispute go public, and a intelligence community trying to regain authority over itself.
The consensus on no threat from Iran was one step in that process--the reclaiming of DNI from the VP's office, and the end of the DoD as primary controller of intelligence that makes its way to policy makers.
This pushback against investigations is aimed at the complicit Capitol Hill dwellers. The first salvo was the leak of the torture tape destruction. This response was a case of "You don't wanna go there." They already decided, some time ago, that an obstruction charge was way better than a war crimes charge. And now they're saying that they're not going down alone.
And, as Glenn said, this is indeed on all the Democrats. They coulda had Rush Holt as chair of intelligence. Russ Feingold as chair of Senate intelligence. They picked tools, not overseers.
But maybe they just weren't paying attention. So we'll see. If Rockefeller steps down and a modern-day Frank Church steps up, well, then you'll have a point. But there's no way, given what we now know, that Rockefeller can conduct this investigation.
-
Hume' Ghost
[Read the article: Democratic complicity in Bush's torture regimen]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think you have consider the possibility, Shade of Dave, that they ARE voting their convictions, that they do believe in the occupation of Iraq and they do support the use of torture.
I mean, it's a much simpler hypothesis to say that they profess these beliefs to get elected, and then vote their consciences than the other way around. You can tell that story about the 2002 AUMF, but not any longer. IMO, Kerry's vote then may have been tactical. But I don' think Clinton's was. I think there is a consensus in Washington for a "muscular diplomacy" that includes the indefinite occupation of Iraq.
There certainly is no majority for the establishment of a sovereign state there, and the concomitant withdrawal of all US forces.
-
Not "Confusion"
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Fear."
There's a sorcerer's apprentice quality to Huckabee's rise. The plan was George Allen. They didn't have a plan B.
Chomsky adds a great deal to any discourse because he is intentionally provocative.
This is precisely the kind of thing that a Jeff Greenfeld will call "a wackjob" comment. But he certainly could not fault Chomsky's ability to be concise.
For those who find those one sentence provocations unbelievably out of the realm of possibility, you will find that he is very good at backing up provocative statements.
-
@Allen Bennett
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Do consider the alternative hypothesis that they voted the way they felt--not that they were swimming up any currents, nor plagued with worry about their electoral prospects.
Consider the possibility that they vote their consciences. Now that they control the Senate, and, more importantly, the purse in the House, consider that the votes they cast, and the legislation they pass is what the leadership wants passed.
The phrase is "More better Democrats."
This is not to give Republicans a pass. There was a time when the Constitution mattered more than fealty. These craven lickspittles deserve nothing but contempt.
-
Don't worry Amity
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Lieberman, if he switches parties, doesn't take his committee appointments with him. (You'll recall that jeffords was offered a plum spot (for him) if he moved.)
But even if lieberman switches parties, the Dem leadership still has the committee seats it started the term with. So if lieberman switches, and stays on homeland security, he has to bump off one member, AND displace the ranking member to retain anything close to his current status.
Long story short, he won't switch parties, because it would mean trading in a chair for something less. And the allocation of committee seats is by party, not by person.
-
Two Words: Steve Howe
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]They don't care about anything except on the field performance.
-
I've been saying this for a while
[Read the article: Harry Reid's FISA games]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]At some point, you have to conclude that the legislation they pass is the legislation they support. At some point, you have to conclude that the Democratic leadership supports measures that provide the President with authoritarian power, and that continue an occupation that is deeply loathed by their constituents.
-
Shooter has a point!
[Read the article: The Lawless Surveillance State]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Shazaam!
Shooter asks a good question. Why don't people encrypt? It'd be a pain for phone calls, but encrypting email is easy. Nobody does it. Or, rather so few people do it, that if you did, you'd be immediately targeted by the NSA as a bad guy, subject to traffic analysis and other stuff.
But if everybody did, they couldn't intercept mail. Of course the reason it would be a pain for phone calls, at least initially, is that there's no demand. Technologically, there's no barrier--and VOIP makes it easier.