Letters to the Editor
bucky1
Published Letters: 1714
-
re: What are you smoking?!?
[Read the article: How did the Bush administration use its secret eavesdropping powers?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... What does one have to do with the other? ...
I doubt that Libby could have been successfully prosecuted without the Democrats in power in the legislative branch. You may feel differently, but I think his trial was affected by the Democratic majority. Since politics is not a lab science we can not know for certain.
... Get serious if you want to be taken seriously ...
As seriously as your words sounded? I want to see the criminals in the white house brought to justice and not get to play out the clock and retire. Do we have to be subjected to another rehabilitation project like the Nixon saga that went on for decades?
The main problem is that the legal system (and political system) honors precedent and I do not want to see this present pattern seen as 'normal' in future analogous cases. Do you?
-
more trains
[Read the article: Standards of American justice under George W. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]WT:
1) The aspersions I accused you of casting weren't on me, rather on historical figures such as LBJ.
2) I seem to have mistaken you for a libertarian. There is, I see, a difference which you think is worth preserving. Fair enough. I apologize for thinking you cared only about lower taxes, the freedom not to associate, and feeling the wind in your hair.
I did not 'cast aspersions' on LBJ. I out and out called him a mass murderer and monster. I thought that in 68 and I think that today.
I do not think Long wrote a 'anarchist catechism' since the catechisms I have seen do not give the arguments against ones position before answering the argument. At least not the one of my faith.
We 'care' about the same things more than likely, but differ on the path to get there. At least we do if you care for freedom and voluntary cooperation among people.
The example of 350 (or so) years of Iceland's freedom is something you should study. When has Democracy ever delivered such a time of freedom?
Anyway, will we talk again on some other topic.
-
re: Some thoughts on despair
[Read the article: How did the Bush administration use its secret eavesdropping powers?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Great post, and I applaud your work with the ACLU and Amnesty International.
I have donated to both, but can not offer time or talent to them at this point. I have helped another cause with time and work --- and it is much more satisfying than a few words posted here. (I think you were saying that)
Any one would loves Howard Zinn is a peach by me. I read some of his history book most every week and I have three copies in case I can "loan" one to a friend.
In fact, I will shut this Ubuntu box down and go re-read Zinn's take on the Nam war now. Bye all.
-
@ Paul Dirks
[Read the article: How did the Bush administration use its secret eavesdropping powers?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Libby was indicted over a year before the election. The prosecutor was one who had cut his teeth dealing with Chicago (Democratic) Machine corruption, The Judge overseeing the case was a Republican Bush appointee and his defense team was as high priced as they come. And you think he was convicted because Congress changed hands?!
I think the prosecutor was a fine fellow and I give him all the credit in the world. I just do not trust the 'justice' system in this country. The Democratic win may have given confidence to the prosecution that there would be no interference from the executive branch. The sentencing phase latter may have also been affected. The actions of all witnesses may well have been affected by the political winds in this country.
I would love to believe that the American 'justice' system would have yielded these results even if 2006 had been a Republican landslide --- but I just do not think so.
I am damn happy they got him. :-)
-
-- kovie
[Read the article: How did the Bush administration use its secret eavesdropping powers?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You really need to provide either evidence or a convincing argument to back this up if you want it to be taken seriously. "I think" is not an argument. Neither is claiming that the law is not science. Although, as in science, in law you do have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt, which you have not even begun to do. Not trying to me overly harsh here but when you make such outlandish statements here, you really do need to back them up with something.
Why?
I told you what I think, you told me what you think. We disagree.
I think the CIA or others may have scuttled the case in some way without Democratic rule in the people's house. This besides what I wrote earlier. You claim it did not matter. If you are right, then we have nothing to credit the Dems with at this point.
Fine, when may I expect my votes in 2006 to help put the criminals in the executive branch in jail? Ever?
-
This Howard Zinn?
[Read the article: How did the Bush administration use its secret eavesdropping powers?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes LWM/Anonymous, that Zinn. I understand that you see only white/black in your little world of hate but many see good and bad in most humans.
Howard Zinn is mostly good; and our best historian for the common man to read. Plus, he never hides behind the 'Anonymous' label.
-
Open Secrets.Org tracks the financing of politicans ...
[Read the article: How did the Bush administration use its secret eavesdropping powers?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]the trend:
Most members of Congress — Democrats and Republicans alike — get the vast majority of their PAC contributions from business interests. Democrats usually get a substantial sum from labor unions; something Republicans rarely get. Newcomers to Congress - particularly in open seat races - may draw significant funds from ideological groups.
In almost all cases, the complexion of candidates' financial backers changes once they win public office. The proportion of business dollars tends to rise, even for Democrats, as members get their committee assignments and begin tapping the industries they oversee for campaign contributions. Among incumbents, only the most liberal Democrats tend to get more money from labor unions than from business groups. Democratic newcomers, on the other hand, typically get strong labor support if they're considered to have a good chance of winning election in the fall.
http://www.opensecrets.org/
This is a great resource.