Letters to the Editor
Dirigo
Published Letters: 673 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Hitting A Brick Wall
[Read the article: Conceding John McCain's "toughness" on national security]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"A classified Pentagon assessment concludes that long battlefield tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with persistent terrorist activity and other threats, have prevented the U.S. military from improving its ability to respond to any new crisis, the Associated Press has learned.
Despite security gains in Iraq, there is still a 'signficant' risk that the strained U.S. military cannot quickly and fully respond to another outbreak in the world, according to the report."
---Lolita C. Baldor
---AP, 2/8/08
-
@RMP
[Read the article: Conceding John McCain's "toughness" on national security]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't recall right now who said it, but whoever it was, he said: "War is the health of the state."
-
@WT
[Read the article: Chris Wallace: Probing, hard-nosed journalist]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I appreciate the exchange we had last night, bucky notwithstanding.
I was in the midst of a reply when the thread shut down, like lights out at the pub. Oh well, what the hell ...
Does bucky know the one from Honest Abe that goes: "You can fool some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time"?
-
@WT
[Read the article: Chris Wallace: Probing, hard-nosed journalist]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, you started, within your gracious apology to me about being dragged into your broken beer-bottle-fight with bucky, talking about serendipity; and I was working, heatedly, on a reply - when the lights went out (I was delighted we got on about Lincoln).
But also, while I was on the roll that I was on, I went off and came across a whole site of H.G. Wells stuff, and there was a short story that I picked at random that I wanted to copy a part of and throw in the pot. The story has to do with a man whose intentions, shall we say, go terribly awry.
I bookmarked the Wells site and will save the story for another serendipitous day.
-
@Anonymous - re: We Already Have The Proof,You Moron
[Read the article: Chris Wallace: Probing, hard-nosed journalist]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Shooter is not persuadable because he would refuse to join the rowers in a Viking long boat; and he'd be terrified by all of those large, beautiful Viking women. If one of them was the boat's captain, he would, of course, refuse her orders.
Big socialists are intimidating, whether high or low.
-
bucky
[Read the article: Chris Wallace: Probing, hard-nosed journalist]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have said twice that I don't wish to enter the fray between you and WT, so obviously, I'm not trying to "help" that along.
We were talking about Lincoln, not you, and enjoying some of his writing, remembering his ideas.
I'm often a bit droll here, which means I'm not always in combat mode.
My last bon mot to Shooter, for example, was just a bit of chain-pulling, based on a tad of ethnic pride because I'm a Viking. Don't tread on me, y'know? I realize he's a pure, committed free marketeer. So am I. I just get mixed up sometimes, like when I ride Amtrak. I'll say to myself, "What is this gummint railroad doing here in MY country?"
Well, no harm done in either situation.
But now, as for the Vikings, they were war mongers weren't they? Boy!
-
Thanks, sysprog
[Read the article: Amnesty Day for Bush and lawbreaking telecoms]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The two biggest lies spouted by the Republican Party that ordinary people need to wrestle to the ground and kill dead (or drown in a bath tub) are that any majority which may form in opposition to a tyrannical minority is simply a rabble of "special interests," and that that rabble could only be successful by relying on predatory "trial lawyers."
Of course, a great, growling, unwashed lump of "special interests" could not afford well-heeled and well-connected corporate lawyers, such as those representing telecom interests. They have to take what they can get, like young smart-aleck law school graduates, or maybe ambulance chasers just out rehab.
The Washington Post (10/19/07) said House Democrats don't understand "exactly what conduct they are shielding" when they oppose telecom immunity. For the Post, even if "the administration has balked at providing such information" on the conduct of telecoms and federal investigators, all is well - "... the telecomunications providers SEEM to have been acting as patriotic corporate citizens in a difficult and uncharted environment."
Seems? Can you spell "proof"?
Well!!! A proof on these matters would SEEM to be moot anyway. It doesn't matter, because, according to the Republican Party: "the terrorist threat to America never expires."
Is that to be written into law too? There'll be no statute of limitations for the "war on terror"?
Big Daddy will scare you, literally, to death; and tell you how to make your bed, tie your shoes, put on your clothes, and brush your teeth (with an embedded digital chip - at no extra charge! - just so you know you have to do it right).
No thank you.
-
Two Questions
[Read the article: Amnesty Day for Bush and lawbreaking telecoms]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What are the procedures with the House on reconciliation of FSIA legislation, considering reports that a block of House leaders (some committee chairs) are saying they oppose telecom immunity?
How quickly can some kind of boycott of telecom services be mounted, perhaps a sort of reverse "lights out" action, like a union work stoppage, just to get people's attention (Sounds far-fetched I know)?
-
A Cave In The House Too?
[Read the article: Amnesty Day for Bush and lawbreaking telecoms]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The House has already rejected the idea of immunity for the phone companies, and Democratic leaders reacted angrily to the Senate vote. But Congressional officials said it appeared that the House would ultimately be forced to accept some sort of legal protection for phone carriers in negotiation between the two chambers this week."
---The New York Times
---Posted on-line today @ 5:55 EST