Letters to the Editor
acefsw
Published Letters: 32
-
re: Looks like there's been a run on tin foil ...
[Read the article: The man who ended our Nixon nightmare]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The tin foil twits arguing Nixon should have been impeached missed an itty bitty fun fact. All impeachment does is remove a president from office. In essence, then, rabidly clamoring Nixon should be impeached after he resigned is akin to demanding a death row inmate be electrocuted after he died of natural causes.--Gwool
From what I've read so far, I think most people were/are pissed that Ford pardoned Nixon for any possible criminal actions he may have committed while in office.--not that he should have been impeached after his resignation, (which is, as you point out, silly). The pardon states clearly, on page 2, (which can be found at http://historyplace.com/speeches/ford.htm),
"I, Gerald R. Ford,.....have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974."
Thus, the crux of the debate is whether Ford's pardon was justified or whether it put the presidency above the laws that the rest of us must live by.
-
bobr900
[Read the article: The man who ended our Nixon nightmare]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One, I said most people were pissed, not a few--most being a majority of an indefinite or large amount of "X." Two, Nixon could not have been impeached after the fact, he resigned. Three, the fact that he resigned did not preclude a thorough investigation of his crimes, it merely made null the need for a formal impeachment. To wit:
"Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of Honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement, and Punishment, according to Law."
Which simply means that the Senate decides whether to remove and disqualify someone from ever holding a public trust; the Senate does not act as a civil or criminal court. However, a judgment of impeachment does not preclude investigation and trial in a public court--and that is EXACTLY what Ford's pardon had done. Ergo, why so many people were pissed off. Yes, Nixon should have been investigated and tried. But, no, there was no actual need for Nixon's impeachment for an investigation and probable trial to continue.
-
re: indignation gap
[Read the article: How the left caused 9/11, by Dinesh D'Souza]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"What matters is word count and volume. If Ted Kennedy had only spent an equal number of equally loud words inveighing against bin Laden, he and his complaints against Bush would apparently win D'Souza's approval, regardless of their factual merits. It is valid to criticize Bush's destruction of habeus corpus only as long as we condemn with equal verve Saddam's destruction of a thousand Kurds. There is no non sequitur in D'Souza's universe."
Well said and I agree. What I found humorous was that previously in the interview, the amount of words said didn't matter when analyzing Bin Laden. When the interviewer pointed out to him that Bin Laden spent only 300 out of the 4000 words of his fahtwa indicting American culture, while the remainder focused on foreign policy, D'Souza then back pedals--"Now we can debate the proportion of sentences in a bin Laden letter."--and then switches the subject of his analysis i.e. not Bin laden, but to Qutb, Khomeini, Mawdudi, etc.
Which is all to say that it appears to be that intellectual dishonesty is D'Souza's forte, but we all knew that.
-
@Shooter 242
[Read the article: The president's oh-so-noble reliance on "executive privilege"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments." article II; sec. II
What power the president has is contingent upon Senate approval. Also, Congress has the power to enact laws to regulate how he appoints particular "inferior" officers.
-
via Atrios
[Read the article: The president's oh-so-noble reliance on "executive privilege"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"House committee votes to subpoena Karl and Harriet"
-
Let the flame wars begin
[Read the article: Will National Review correct Cliff May's false Iraq claims?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Finally, if I were playing tit-for-tat I'd ask Corner readers to deluge Glenn with e-mails (at GGreenwald@salon.com) demanding he apologize for not citing any polls that contradict his beliefs. But I'm too nice a person for that."--May
Seriously, I'd like to see May post the actual links to the polls he cites. I am especially interested in the wording, particulaly as pertains to funding the troops. Many Republicans have equated restricting/withdrawing funds for the war with stranding the troops in Iraq with no money for equipment, food, etc., which is an absolute straw-man--a patently false dichotomy, (hence, why I assume Sen. Russ Feingold expressly addressed this issue in his article today). So, I have to wonder if their disengenuous rhetoric has in any way affected the public's perception concerning withholding funds for Iraq. I'd also be curious to see some polling on the subject of funding after Reid's and Feingold's bill becomes more clearly disseminated--if there is any change of the public's perception concerning funding.
-
EJ thanks
[Read the article: Will National Review correct Cliff May's false Iraq claims?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'd never heard of POS before, so I had a sneaking suspicion that the polls had loaded questions--agreed, still don't get why he cited the Time poll.