Letters to the Editor
RichEmery
Published Letters: 832 Editor's Choice: 191
-
This separates "politician" from "statesman"
[Read the article: Bush: "Miserable failure" or "bitter disappointment"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Most every honest person knows that Armey's candid opinions are pretty accurate, as far as they go. Sadly, the pure politician will suppress what he/she knows to be true, in order to pursue other interests. Those interests generally span a VERY narrow range: all the way from personal power up to some sort of group power.
On the other hand, a statesman will sacrifice his/her personal power or group power, criticizing others and their actions when warranted, political concerns notwithstanding.
Many are pure politicians; some are politicians and statesmen at the same time; still others are pure statesmen. The biggest problem, by far, occurs when the pure politicians wrest power from those latter two groups, who grow faint from the idea that being honest, honorable and patriotic might allow the pure politicians to criticize them. (No, Armey doesn't get bonus credit for honesty now -- his test came when he held power in Washington. He flunked that test and earned his failing grade at the time. No do-overs are allowed, so he is no statesman at this late date.)
Doing what's RIGHT is, by definition, the right thing to do. Sadly, though, people with a conscience always seem to be at a disadvantage against those without conscience. Hang the political considerations, because those are always changing. Show some backbone -- don't cave in like Colin Powell and most of the Senate, who aided and abetted this President's rush to war, against what they now say is their better judgment.
Let's hope Republicans like Sen. Voinovich have finally had enough, at long last. Get on the right side of history, senators -- approve SOMETHING that puts you on record opposing Bush's misguided Iraq strategy!
-
Is it now "Harold" Nader? Or Ralph "Stassen"?
[Read the article: The party line on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Official voting records show that Nader received about 2.9 million votes in the 2000 presidential race nationwide. His vote total dropped to just over 400,000 in 2004, or about 14% of what he'd received four years before. Following this trend, let's make the worst case scenario for this 21st Century Harold Stassen -- if he gets 14% of his 2004 total, that would leave him with...
Sixty thousand votes! As the laughter now slowly dies down, why don't we all just stop worrying about this egotistical has-been who is in grave danger of ruining any positive memories Americans have of him?
Ralph, look carefully at the biography of Harold Stassen. He too was a credible public figure at one time, but his stubborn refusal to face reality destroyed any legacy he might have left us. Do you want to follow in his misguided footsteps?
-
Heard at a recent seance
[Read the article: Flown to Baghdad: 363 tons of cash]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When asked for a comment on recent events in Iraq, the ghost of Sen. Everett Dirksen quipped:
"A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money."
-
Is it naive to expect consistency from "conservatives"?
[Read the article: Prewar intelligence, or when "inappropriate" looks pretty good]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I know it always depends on whose ox is being gored -- and never more than with purely political processes like impeachment -- but the deafening silence from "conservatives" on the issue of Dubya's incessant LYING TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC can't be ignored.
From the infamous Starr Report on Pres. Clinton, the Rosetta Stone of political vendettas (omitting grounds 1 through 10):
- - - - - - -
There is substantial and credible information supporting the following eleven possible grounds for impeachment:
11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.
- - - - - - -
Here's the first part of Article 4 from Clinton's impeachment:
- - - - - - -
Article 4: Abuse of Power by making perjurious statements to Congress in his answers to the 81 questions posed by the Judiciary Committee.
Using the powers and influence of the office of President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his high office, impaired the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened the authority of the legislative branch and the truth-seeking purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding in that, as President, William Jefferson Clinton, refused and failed to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him as part of the impeachment inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States.
- - - - - - -
All the pontificating at that time about the rule of law, cooperation with Congressional investigations, and lying to the public and Congress rings even more hollow now than it did then. Whatever one thinks of Clinton, his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, and his efforts to evade/avoid its public disclosure, lying to the country and Congress about those issues pale by comparison to lying about Iraq in the run-up to war.
Many of the same personalities who lusted after Bill Clinton's scalp are still in office -- where are these voices now? Why don't they hold Dubya to AT LEAST the same standard as Bill? Aren't the consequences of lying us into an unjustified and mismanaged war AT LEAST as serious as lying about consensual sex, whether under oath or not?
Of course, I know the answers to those questions. We all do.