Letters to the Editor
Jebbie
Published Letters: 1119
-
-- Jim White
[Read the article: Dick Cheney's top aide: "We're one bomb away" from our goal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"When Congress caved last month on FISA reauthorization, retroactive immunity was included. This was presented as providing immunity for the telecommunications companies that provided information for the surveillance, but the wording covered all of those involved in the process. As Goldsmith points out, providing immunity for themselves was a very high priority for the architects of this glorious plan."
I do not believe the bolded part above is entirely correct. From what I understand, the FISA Bill passed last month did not provide immunity to the telecommunications companies. Isn't that one of the goals the administration has set for Congress' re-visiting FISA as early as this month?
-
-- Karen M
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt, Michael Ledeen and the "bomb Iran crazies"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I guess that settles it, then? No funny conservatives. Nada. None. Zip."
Doesn't Shooter count?
-
Glenn
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I'll ask you -- is Larry Craig's behavior in bathrooms relevant? Is David Vitter's with prostitutes?"
In the overall scheme of things, no.
All those things are are vehicles which can be used to convey the message we want to spread. They're attention-getters but, in and of themselves, they don't mean nothin.
-
@Adnoto - you're correct
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Modern aircraft carriers steam into the wind when launching or recovering aircraft, they do not stop.
The aircraft which Bush rode to the carrier was not a "fighter" but rather one of the sub-sonic multi-task aircraft designated the S-3 (Viking). Nevertheless, landing on an aircraft carrier, whether it be in a modern fighter or a transport/ASW aircraft such as the S-3, is still one of the most dangerous acts performed by Naval aviators.
The mere act of utilizing this mode of transportation to the aircraft carrier merely for a photo op placed the President in more danger than should have been the case. It says a lot about the administration's distain for the citizens of this country that they would unnecessarily risk the life of the President of the United States (even this miserable excuse for a President) for a mere photo op.
Hornet Driver, if you indeed are what your handle implies, my hat is off to you for that accomplishment, but you're still an ass like most of the testosterone driven Naval aviators I have had the misfortune to meet.
-
Not one more dime
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I read tonight that Sen. Dodd has said that he would not support giving the administration more money when he gives Congress the latest "suplemental" for another $30 Billion unless there is a strict timeline for our withdrawl from Iraq.
Sen. Dodd, you are empowered to filibuster any revenue bill to death and I fully expect to see you do that if necessary. If there is a timeline, the Administration will either veto the entire bill or use a signing statement to get around it.
Quit fuckin around with those bastards. Don't give that madman another thin dime.
-
-- ScienceGuy
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The extent and value of these "gains" is dubious at best, as several recent reports have shown. Yet, the New York Times simply starts with the premise that the gains are real and the only question is whether to reduce troops at all. The concept that we should withdraw fully is not even seriously considered. It's really remarkable how the Bush administration talking point that "the surge is working" has simply become conventional wisdom, and any contrary facts are simply ignored."
As far as I am concerned, the "surge" should be considered a success only if it allows us to bring ALL of our troops home. Anything less than that will, IMO, define failure.
Congress MUST force this administration to begin the withdrawl NOW. Not next month, not next year, and certainly not after that. They (Congress) has the tools with which to do this and the only question is whether they have the political courage.
-
-- Paul Dirks
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"In one of the rare instances where shooter said something that's not wrong, he noted that a lot of the GWB strategy is to lead our enemies to assume the worst. There's no doubt in my mind that the "leak" was deliberate and designed to let the Iranians worry that there are indeed 5 missiles with their names on them now conveniently located in Louisiana."
Wasn't that also Saddam's strategy?
-
-- GoodCelery
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"
P.S. I do feel this blog is a powerful compilation. A good epic of well spent time.
Mr. Oz, that # 4 just had me going back in time. Thanks."
That could quite possibly be your absolute best post to date.
Off to LBJ
-
It's really Sad
[Read the article: The D.C. establishment versus American public opinion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]By all accounts, Gen. Petreaus (at the order of the CinC, I presume) has been laying the groundwork for this "report to Congress" for several months, beginning even before this rancid administration would even admit that the so-called surge was even completed.
Think about that. These assholes running our country (yes, I include the Democratic leadership in that number) have been honing their position(s) for this time period even before the increase in occupation forces was even completed. Thus, it's fair to say that even though they KNEW this tactic would fail to secure any lasting strategic or tactical benefit, they've seen fit to order more and more of our kids into their meatgrinder.
Is there not One Single Senator who will utilize his constitutional power and STOP further funding of this madness?
Is there not One Single Elected official in Washington who will put his own political career on the line to save the lives of both our troops and Iraqis who have done us no harm?
Is there not One Single Military officer who will live up to his oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America at the risk of his military career?
If not, what the fuck are they fighting for?