Letters to the Editor
RichEmery
Published Letters: 787 Editor's Choice: 191
-
Logical extension of Bolton's opinion?
[Read the article: John Bolton to U.N. high commissioner: Shut up]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Considering U.N. Ambassador Bolton's disrespect of an international civil servant's opinion concerning treatment of terror suspects, it isn't too hard to imagine his feelings about the opinions of average Americans. U.S. citizens must rely on independent media (to paraphrase our leading un-diplomat, "...what we read in the newspapers") if we're to have an unbiased and more complete understanding of events beyond what the government wants us to believe. No doubt any disagreement based on such extra information is by definition illegitimate to Mr. Bolton. It's sad to have leaders and representatives with so little regard for opposing opinions.
-
Questions that are truly eternal
[Read the article: Bush: Trust me on spying]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Can anyone even IMAGINE the reaction by rabid Republicans if Bill Clinton had done even 5% of what Bush has done to America since 9/11? This includes taking the country to a war of pure choice, thereby hobbling the really necessary war against true terrorists in Afghanistan, emasculating the U.S. Constitution by assertion of sweeping executive powers to hold prisoners without appeal, rendition of prisoners to other countries in order to torture them, and eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without warrants, etc.?
The mind boggles. Clinton, of course, was impeached for lying about consensual extramarital relations. What, then, will it take for Americans to start discussing impeaching Bush for huge abuses of our nation by an out-of-control White House? What CAN'T Bush justify by invocation of presidential war powers? Very little, I'm afraid.
Stop the hypocrisy, American patriots -- stand up for the REAL American values of government by rule of law, by consent of the governed! A dictatorship is a dictatorship regardless of the patriotic trappings hung about it -- the old saying about "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" scarcely covers what's going on now.
-
"Significant hole" in speculation Cheney was drunk is the exact opposite!
[Read the article: Fourteen hours]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I disagree strongly with the statement at the end of "Fourteen hours" that Armstrong's report of Cheney's later cocktail back at the house somehow puts a hole in the Cheney-was-lickered-up speculation. It really does the exact opposite!
If a person had an expectation or fear that testing MIGHT be done for blood alcohol level, as Cheney could have, how better to cover it up than with alcohol consumed later on, serving quite well to fog and obscure earlier intoxication? How quickly would his reflexive supporters rush to excuse that later drunkenness by saying this showed just how upset he was over shooting his friend, and oh by the way, now you can't draw ANY conclusions about his state during the actual shooting? Talk about the PERFECT coverup!
Sadly, apparently no one checked Cheney; however, it still remains to be seen if Mr. Whittington's blood alcohol content had been tested and recorded. That proves nothing about the Vice President, but WOULD shoot another HUGE hole in so-called eye-witness testimony about this incident.
-
Remember Krauthammer's "trial balloon" concerning Harriet Miers?
[Read the article: Noonan: This could be the end for Dick Cheney]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Peggy Noonan may be filling the same role previously occupied by Charles Krauthammer during the recent Harriet Miers debacle. Remember how he predicted the exact exit strategy employed by Ms. Miers and the White House when she withdrew her Supreme Court nomination?
This Noonan column sure smells like a similar trial balloon -- no one should be surprised to see things play out almost as she laid them out. One prediction a bit different from her scenario -- look for Bush to nominate a sitting Senator as the new Vice President. I strongly doubt the Senate would savage a fellow Senator in such a situation of "national trauma," unless he picked someone like Sen. Santorum. Then again, there IS no one "like" Sen. Santorum! He's one-of-a-kind, which is an entirely different thread to consider...
-
Savor the first line from this AP report on the ports deal
[Read the article: Need a job? Get the president to visit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PORTS_SECURITY?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-02-22-10-50-29
Where to start? "President Bush was unaware..." Tell us something we DIDN'T know already. And how silly is it to call this "...his administration..."? Is there ANYONE who still believes Bush is in control of ANYTHING? If he were in control, would it be possible for such a controversial issue to proceed to final approval without involving or even INFORMING our Dear Leader?
How much more of this must occur before everyone realizes the truth -- that we have a Figurehead in Chief, not a Commander in Chief? Our President is nothing but a ventriloquist's dummy like Charlie McCarthy, except we don't know for sure who "Edgar Bergen" is -- and there's NOTHING comic about this situation.
-
Savor the first line from this AP report on the ports deal
[Read the article: Bush threatens veto -- his first -- over port deal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here](I accidentally posted this in response to another War Room item -- don't ask how, just a dumb mistake -- but it's pertinent to THIS item, so here it is again!)
"President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PORTS_SECURITY?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-02-22-10-50-29
Where to start? "President Bush was unaware..." Tell us something we DIDN'T know already. And how silly is it to call this "...his administration..."? Is there ANYONE who still believes Bush is in control of ANYTHING? If he were in control, would it be possible for such a controversial issue to proceed to final approval without involving or even INFORMING our Dear Leader?
How much more of this must occur before everyone realizes the truth -- that we have a Figurehead in Chief, not a Commander in Chief? Our President is nothing but a ventriloquist's dummy like Charlie McCarthy, except we don't know for sure who "Edgar Bergen" is -- and there's NOTHING comic about this situation.
-
But if not Charlie McCarthy...
[Read the article: Bush threatens veto -- his first -- over port deal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...maybe our Dear Leader is MORE like Mortimer Snerd. (Hope this isn't too distant a memory for lots of readers too young to recall Edgar Bergen and his various characters! If you don't remember yourself, ask your parents or grandparents!)