Letters to the Editor
Tribunzio
Published Letters: 7 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Illustrates well just how far from "a nation of laws" the right wants to be
[Read the article: Abortions available to sodomized virgins only]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So some people are to be allowed to murder innocent fetuses -- but only if they are pure-and-terribly-wronged enough. Sure, and in the same way a president may be allowed to secretely spy on anyone he chooses, secretely detain and torture whomever he deems an enemy combatant, and in general go about dismantling the soul of our constitution, that careful balance known as separation of powers -- as long as he does so in the name of a terrorized, religious, and republican America.
Quite the opposite of the "nation of laws, not of men" principle. As long as a person passes an approved purity test, they should be allowed to perform any act, however despicable we may find it to be in itself.
"Pecca fortiter sed fortius fide et gaude in Rove"?
-
WH setting up another strategic 20-minute tape gap?
[Read the article: Variety: Sources say ABC could cancel "The Path to 9/11"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why should ABC cancel the whole thing though?
I find unlikely that the announced presidential address would preempt the parts of the docudrama dedicated to illustrating how (in a parallel, more intelligently designed universe) the 9-11 attack might even have been Clinton's fault. Since this is the most newsworthy and weighty part of the evening's entertainment (after all, viewers would be unlikely to be exposed to this "point of view" so pithily anywhere else), it would be a pity, not to mention an insult to freedom-of-speech lovers of every ideological stripe, for ABC to keep it under wraps.
I'm sure there's 20 minutes' room to be found for Bush's address during the more old-hat, rehashed-ad-infinitum, been-there-done-that, non-newsworthy parts: like the dramatization of Bush poo-pooing repeated warnings all spring and summer before the 9-11 attacks; and his sitting passively, uneasily in that classroom during the attack, waiting dumbly as if for a cue from his stage director. We've all seen that before.
-
I can't fault Clinton or Kerry too much for that vote
[Read the article: Hillary, Iraq and the nonadmission admission]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just one question: how likely would Saddam Hussein have been to allow unfettered inspections without the credible threat of US invasion?
At the time, getting inspectors in to see everything seemed to be the main point. Saddam did let the inspectors in, and they were successfully and credibly proving that Saddam was not a threat to his neighbors, and this should have been an opportunity to scale back the threat level and get back to realistic pursuits.
Take away the president's bargaining stick, and Saddam calls our bluff and we get nothing.
Of course, in hindsight, that would have been much preferable. Because it turns out the president wasn't bluffing Iraq -- he was bluffing us.
-
Not worth responding to -- politically of course
[Read the article: The Justice Department vs. Joe Conason]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You have to put your political lenses on to make any sense of McKinnon's comment that Joe is "generally not worth responding to". Mark means that responding to Conason is usually politically a losing proposition for this administration.
In the same way perhaps, New Orleans was "generally not worth saving" -- and the occupation of Iraq is definitely "not worth ending".
"X is Y" is just bushie-speak for "politically X is Y for this administration".
-
The only "good" reason to vote for war powers in September was to get Saddam to agree to open inspections
[Read the article: "A null set"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The only way to get Saddam to agree to full inspections was to project a credible threat of US invasion. So -- Congress decides not to undermine the president's bargaining position (either Saddam lets us prove to ourselves that he has no WMD, or we invade). Saddam finally caves, kicking and screaming all the way. And then, right when the war bluff is about to pay off completely (proof that Saddam has no WMD capability after all), Bush reveals his hand and invades Iraq anyway -- he hadn't been bluffing Saddam! turns out it was the Democrats in Congress he'd been bluffing all along. Ha ha shame on them.
The bitter irony: if Saddam had actually possessed workable WMDs, even this administration would have wanted to weigh the invasion vs. diplomacy options much more carefully -- a fact duly noted around the world by nations large and small.
-
The Channel Islands were occupied during WWII
[Read the article: Guerrillas rise up in Nazi-occupied Britain]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Much closer to France than England. Before being occupied, they had been demilitarized by British forces so there was no fighting although harbors were bombed and civilians killed. Interesting Wikipedia link to the occupation and resistance history at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Channel_Islands.
-
Stop the fake "Italian" concern
[Read the article: Michelle Obama on "ignorant" America]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Not too many ordinary (or "typical") Italians have identified with the Roman Occupiers of Palestine since the sixth century or so (with a few notable exceptions here and there), and yet Barack Obama is not out of the woods yet especially because Jeremiah Wright referred to Ancient Roman oppressors as "garlic nose Italians" when challenging his congregation to stop caring more about bling bling than about freeing their minds?
Stop already, I really can't take that seriously at all.
More of that Wright sermon is at http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080326a.html.
Be sure not to miss the vicious hatemongering in Wright's conclusion:"In a world that is controlled by white supremacy, in a country that is on its way to hell in a hand basket because of lying politicians, in a culture that still thinks 'white is right' and with young people who do not have a clue as to our story, our history, our legacy or our destiny, we still have African-American Christians who are more concerned about 'bling bling' than about freeing our minds," Wright wrote.
You want Barack in trouble for Wright saying that?