Letters to the Editor
aeschylus
Published Letters: 219 Editor's Choice: 4
-
The article's title "Would these Republicans have impeached..."...
[Read the article: The Republicans who would've impeached Bush?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...implies an answer to the question is forthcoming. *That* could have made for an interesting article. Instead we get this Watergate rehash and the provocative implication that today's Republicans just don't measure up (From the pages of Salon. Imagine.).
Another good article might address the question that if Republicans of yore could pursue impeachment against their own party, then why can't today's Democrats pursue impeachment against the other side, if impeachment is warranted?
What do they teach in journalism school, exactly?
-
So Benn's argument is...
[Read the article: The real two-state solution]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...the Israelis aren't using the West Bank, anyway, so they might as well give it to the Palestinians? And *then* Israel will be accepted by the Arab world? That is, if the Israelis would stop acting so stuck up?
There will *never* be peace in the Middle East so long as there's an Israel. Palestinian state or not.
-
The Smurf raises an *excellent* point...
[Read the article: Fantasies in black and white]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Libs love to point out that more whites are on welfare than blacks. I have no reason to doubt that claim. But who, exactly, is keeping Poor Whitey down?
It all boils down to valuing education, community, family and behaving one's self. Some people don't. They end up in dead-end jobs, poverty or jail. We can argue that such people are the product of their environment, but here's the rub: if we all used our environment as a fall-back excuse, we'd still be living in caves and drawing on the walls.
-
Bottom line:
[Read the article: Should we euthanize the Yorkie?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When an old pet starts evacuating its bladder and bowels where it pleases, it's time to go. I've had many pets, and loved them all. But they are pretty replaceable, nonetheless. And no, that isn't heartless. People are more important than animals. Fuck PETA.
Cary's got it backwards: it's not that we shouldn't euthanize incontinent pets because we don't do the same to humans. We need to wake up and start euthanizing incontinent people. And no driving after the age of 70.
-
You're the Scrooge
[Read the article: It's gift-giving time, and I'm cranky about gift cards and pushy kids]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Get people what they want, not what you want to give them, you selfish bastard. The gift is about the recipient, not the giver.
-
Oh, that's clever, Joan.
[Read the article: Corruption in Iraq: Where did they learn that?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because everybody knows that cronyism and corruption and theft and bribery sprung fully grown from the head of President Bush. There was certainly no evidence of same in Iraq under, say, Hussein in the Oil-for-food scandal.
Hell, words like "corruption" and "cronyism" weren't even in the dictionary before 2001! Did you vote for Bill Clinton? Do you support Sen. Clinton? Where did you find your sudden ill-ease with government misbehavior, Joan? Was it hiding under your NOW membership card that you stuffed in the back of your bedroom closet when President Clinton was calling Lewinsky a stalker and marching his cabinet out to vouch for him? Maybe it got lost in the shuffle of evidence that Webster Hubbell was given sweet "consulting" deals in exchange for not testifying against the Clintons. Or maybe your civic conscience somehow got mixed up with evidence of Hillary's corruption and cronyism in Travelgate. Or did your high-minded principles get lost as part of the same "clerical" error that resulted in Sen. Clinton's theft of all that White House furniture as she moved to New York? Do I even need to mention all the shady Clinton pardons?
Why not just make the legitimate argument that Iraq was a mistake, and examine some more evidence to that effect? Why in the world would you make the embarrassing argument that every little defect in Iraq is a direct and unique descendant of President Bush's original sin?("Please ignore all presidential history before 2001! Nothing to see here!")
I can see making the swipe in some "West Wing" script with multiple writers. That way, you'd have plausible deniability. ("No, I didn't write that! Only the good stuff is mine.") But this blog is yours alone. Do you really think blaming every aspect of Iraq's dysfunction on Bush because he's an evil Republican is effective rhetoric beyond the choir to which you preach? Does it strike you as good writing (or even critical thinking) that should have made it into the final draft of your post? Really?
-
It's interesting, Essmeier, that...
[Read the article: Corruption in Iraq: Where did they learn that?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]you reduced my examples of corruption to mere marital infidelity. Try reading more slowly, next time:
Travelgate; Hubbel hush money; fishy pardons; furniture theft. I should also have added campaign contribution shenanigans. And please don't tell me he didn't try to tamper with witnesses. When he said to his secretary, 'I was never alone with her, right?' do you honestly think a series of extramarital BJ's had slipped his mind? And if lying becomes okay when you don't appreciate the questions, then what's your beef with the current administration, exactly?
And spare me the "loss of life" angle. You don't care about the number of lives lost. It's the issue itself that honks you off. If preventable loss of life were your true concern, then why aren't you campaigning (e.g.) to lower the speed limit to 40 mph? That'd save a ton of people. Complaining about lives lost per se is disingenuous poor-mouth church talk.
The respective trash you and I talk is forgiveable inasmuch as it's the work of amateurs. Walsh is drawing a salary for her nonsense. Shame on her.