Letters to the Editor
Martin Gifford
Published Letters: 159
-
Maybe the Democrats deliberately timed it this way for the Presidential election!
[Read the article: House Democrats reject telecom amnesty, warrantless surveillance]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If this new bill is rejected by McCain and co, Obama can slam him repeatedly for rejecting a bill that would Protect Us From The Terrorists.
I've always suspected that the Democrats were up to something with their constantly changing attitudes and actions.
-
Glenn wrote: "Donna Edwards ousted long-time incumbent Al Wynn by accusing him of being excessively complicit with the Bush agenda."
That's the new rhetorical question to ask McCain:
Are you for America or for the Bush agenda?"
-
How can Obama go to that preacher for so many years?
[Read the article: Obama's faith in the reasoning abilities of the American public]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obviously, Obama has some sympathy for what that preacher says.
But that doesn't mean Obama will throw whites into slavery or sell America to the highest bidder.
And being angry at the situation many blacks are in, is not as significant as Bush starting a war and McCain promoting more war.
As a package deal, Obama is huge and good. This preacher issue will teach him to be even more politically and socially astute.
-
Annie-Marie Slaughter is Correct
[Read the article: War advocates like Anne-Marie Slaughter demand that you forget the past]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Slaughter wrote: "The debate is still far too much about who was right and who was wrong on the initial invasion and far too little about how, in Obama's formulation, to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. That does not mean that those of us who were wrong about Iraq -- with whatever nuances, explanations, and justifications we might care to offer -- do not have a great deal to answer for. We do."
She is entirely correct.
Glenn deceivingly converted her argument that critics should be suggesting more solutions, to being about her self-defense.
She admitted she has "a great deal to answer for." Her point was that we should spend more time on solutions.
Obama should be engaging in a robust debate about what to do about Iraq. He should be attacking Clinton about Iraq in the same strong way that Glenn is attacking McCain and co here.
It is true that those who advocated war are not really worthy of supplying possible solutions. But also, those who were against the war were not advocating sensible alternatives about what to do with dictators and terrorists. So anti-war people are not especially qualified either.
The real solution is that in the same way we have local police to stop local violence, we should create an international police force for stopping international violence (war and terrorism).
Until anti-war advocates engage properly in this issue, the stagnation will continue, which is Slaughter's valid point.
-
Glenn should write a book called TRAITORS since he's a constitutional lawyer
[Read the article: The Obama passport snooping and the unchecked surveillance state]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn, why don't you use your qualifications as a constitutional lawyer to write a book about how the current government (both sides) and media are breaking down the constitution?
Call it: TRAITORS!
-
Glenn demonstrated Slaughter's point. It's time for the anti-war crowd to come up with real solutions.
[Read the article: War advocates like Anne-Marie Slaughter demand that you forget the past]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wrote: "The real solution is that in the same way we have local police to stop local violence, we should create an international police force for stopping international violence (war and terrorism). Until anti-war advocates engage properly in this issue, the stagnation will continue, which is Slaughter's valid point."
It seems to me that rightwingers and pro-war types are good at setting goals e.g. get rid of dictators and terrorists.
Those goals are good. But the method, which is war, is bad.
Slaughter's point was that leftwingers are so busy complaining about the proposed method that that they forget about goals and methods. That's a true evaluation.
Glenn's reply and your replies demonstrate Slaughter's point.
Obama and Clinton and the Democratic party are hoping to win on the basis of the opposition's failed policies rather than offering creative alternatives. So the stagnation will continue because they are wrestling with the difficult issues.
BTW, hunting down terrorists is the international equivalent of being a vigilante. We need an international police force (or strengthen Interpol if you like).