Letters to the Editor
TG Chicago
Published Letters: 76 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Scandal Factory
[Read the article: More questions for Gonzales]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How many U.S. attorneys were fired -- or slated for firing -- because they wouldn't prosecute trumped-up voting fraud cases? As McClatchy reports today, documents and testimony show that the administration "set out to replace" U.S. attorneys in nine "battleground election states," and in at least seven of those states Republicans were, at the time, urging "investigations or prosecutions of alleged Democratic voter fraud."
That's awfully strong circumstantial evidence that the Bush admin was attempting to manufacture a voter fraud scandal, isn't it?
Rove and Co. push Justice to file cases in the battleground states. The idea was to get a bunch of cases all happening at once. If the USAs hadn't refused to go along due to the lack of evidence, the GOP would have had all sorts of ammo to call the Dems corrupt and to make moves to squelch minority voter turnout.
If this had gone forward, who knows how the 2006 election might have turned out?
-
Great article
[Read the article: The end of Bush's kangaroo courts?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for the great article.
The paragraphs contrasting the success rate of the tribunal system vs. the DoJ should be memorized and repeated ad nauseam by all leaders of the Democratic Party, particularly those running for president.
If a prominent Democrat makes this case, there is no reasonable way anyone could accuse them of being "soft on terrorism". The DoJ and the traditional American justice system has been tougher on terrorists than the mismanaged Bush system.
(The words "Bush" and "mismanaged" look quite comfortable and cozy together, dont they? They seem to spend a lot of time in each other's company.)
-
I agree that it's a cheap shot
[Read the article: Marginalized]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think the letter writers have done a better job than Mr. Grieve of hitting the real issue here. It's weird that they're smiling and doing a photo op about this report. The facts that Gonzo is short and he isn't standing RIGHT NEXT TO the president is meaningless.
It's dumb when the right wing gets all goofy about John Edwards' haircut. This is even dumber.
Who cares if Gonzo is short? Would he be a better AG if he was a foot taller, but did all the same stuff?
Focus on his actions, not physical characteristics.
-
Libby post-prison
[Read the article: About that pardon ...]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Libby will do his sleepy little stretch of time like the good little mafia soldier he is, and when he comes out, the payoff on the back end will be a nice cozy little life for himself, and that's already been arranged. He won't have to do anything except come out and call in his markers.
And that will be the whole of his punishment. Book deals, lobbying, "consulting fees," maybe a radio show, who knows?
I'm thinking a spot on the panel of Meet the Press.
-
example
[Read the article: Prejudice in America]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To give a specific example of why I (and other commenters) are skeptical of this polling technique:
I support equal marriage rights for homosexuals.
If you asked me whether I support equal marriage rights, I would say "yes".
If you asked me whether "most Americans" supported equal marriage rights, I would say "no".
So the "most Americans" formulation would do a lousy job of reflecting my personal beliefs (well, they'd reflect my personal beliefs about "most Americans", but that doesnt seem to be the point).
I guess it's nice that most Americans think that most Americans would be willing to vote for a gay presidential candidate. Kind of confusing, though.
I'd like to see this technique used for a question like presidential approval to see if the totals match up to standard polling on the question. You'd think that since Bush has been polling around 30 percent for some time, even most of his supporters would recognize that "most Americans" do not support him, so the number of his "most Americans" support would be even lower than his actual support. But who knows? Maybe Bush's supporters are insular and delusional enough to think they're in the majority.
-
We weren't in Iraq, but...
[Read the article: Bush wins back the ditto-heads]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To expand on Dawggone's excellent point, it is true that American boots were not on the ground in Iraq in 1993 or 2001.
However, it was not Iraqis who attacked us on 9/11. It was mostly Saudis. And we were in Saudi Arabia.
Bush continues to try to confuse the issue. If more Americans were better informed, this would not work even to the small degree it does these days.
-
Preposterous
[Read the article: Yeah, but did he drive a Winnebago there?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I was at Ground Zero as often [as], if not more than, most of the workers," Giuliani told reporters in Ohio Thursday.
Why would Giuliani make such a claim? Besides the fact that it's patently and provably false, it doesnt even make any sense.
Why would we want a mayor to be spending long days sifting through rubble? That's not a mayor's job. If he actually had done what he claims, he would have been doing an awful job as mayor.
Bizarre.
-
total
[Read the article: Number of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If my math is right, we should expect him to take 92 more vacation days (based on his rate of vacation thus far), for a total of 510 days. That's a 17% increase over the most vacationed president in history. Wow.