Letters to the Editor
Brian - Seattle
Published Letters: 265 Editor's Choice: 8
-
Um, ok but...
[Read the article: The United States is not occupying Alabama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]the point is still somewhat valid. Dems keep using McCain's quote to suggest that he would be willing to fight a war in Iraq for 100 years, which isn't true. Everyone that listened to what he said and has an objective mind knows what he meant and it's probably for the most part true. Permanent bases in Iraq could become a reality for many reasons and they would be there for the duration.
You can argue back and forth whether this is a good idea or not but to stretch McCains statement to mean that he's willing to do what we are doing now for 100 years is only hurting democrats and giving Republicans free justification to use against them when courting GOP voters. If you want to reach across the lines and swing voters, you need to be truthful. I think too many democrats are taking a win in this election for granted and this type of campaigning is typical of that. Say whatever to make the democrats happy because they will win anyway. Just like 2004 right?
-
@FreeProton
[Read the article: The United States is not occupying Alabama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I disagree with your analysis. There are troops in Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. In fact, we even have bases in Bahrain. So to suggest that having a permanent base = war, is disingenuous.
Of course McCain wants to stay in Iraq, but he would envision a "victory", then a permanent presence in the country during peace, not a continuous war for 100 years, which is what dems are suggesting. This is similar to what we have done in the past in other countries. He sees our presence there as a stabilizing force not one of consistent war, which he knows is not sustainable.
You can call it splitting hairs if you want, but dems are not being completely truthful. They know what he meant and it's a freebie for McCain as right-wingers can use it to solidify the GOP voters.
Additionally, I see a problem with people trying to talk to swing voters and bringing up something like this. When you twist the facts, people back into their corner instead of trying to understand the issue and you lose them. This is the problem I see with this and other rhetoric from the dems. Maybe we don't "need" them this year but I felt that was the same thing going on in 2004.
-
Good Article
[Read the article: No, Hillary Clinton shouldn't be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glad to see someone that has the ability to think objectively about an idea and do some research - including setting up arguments against their own that aren't straw men.
I'm glad Salon put this article up and yes, I agree it should be the front page for half a day - at least.
-
Reaffirms what most of us already knew
[Read the article: Who's in charge here?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bush was a puppet put in by those in the circle you describe here. I disagree that Bush knew what he was doing as another person said here. Honestly, he is not a smart man. I'm not convinced he has the intellectual capacity to be a leader in any sort of fashion other than following the advice of his advisors.
-
Sexism?
[Read the article: Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I just don't see it. I'm sorry, but you can say I'm naive or plain just not paying attention but to say that as a man and as an Obama supporter that I'm sexist is just plain wrong. I'm not sexist. How do I know? How about "I just fucking know"?
OK, so you aren't calling me a sexist per say but it must be the "other" male Obama supporters? If you make a sweeping generalization like this, then it forces us to respond.
My take? It's almost as if people who state they are a feminist WANT there to be sexism, even if it there isn't. It gives you a reason to argue why your candidate isn't winning.
I don't dislike Hillary for being a Woman. I believe she is able to be president and for the first part of this campaign (until Wisconsin) I felt she was doing a pretty good job but Obama was doing it better. I never got behind Hillary for these core reasons.
1 - She acts as if she is entitled to the presidency.
2 - She is polarizing and I believe will not accomplish much due to it.
3 - I do not believe she is sincere in things she says she cares about.
If you replace she with he, then there is no difference. In fact, I could replace She with George W. Bush and it really striking how similar they are.
Anyway, to Salon. This article and similar ones you've had lately are really turning me off to your reporting. This type of writing doesn't belong here. If you think it does, then my subscription doesn't.
-
@Salon
[Read the article: The rubes and the elites]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What's up with the Obama bashing pieces and pro-Hillary articles lately? I wouldn't care if they actually had substance and made a good argument but they are mostly just copied campaign mantra that we hear all the time from her Campaign.
I come here because I liked the nice balance and in depth analysis of your stories, not the one sided or basic list of events stuff. Those kind of stories are everywhere.
Come on. Get it together Joan.
-
Xanthro
[Read the article: McCain confused about Petraeus' job, chain of command]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Of course Petraeus would need to provide input on whether he thinks troops could be diverted, but should? No. That's not his decision. Patraeus is not the head of forces in both countries nor responsible for the mission in Afghanistan.
That's where this quote by McCain is wrong. No stretching needed.