Letters to the Editor
Alison M. Swann
Published Letters: 67 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Thank you, Glenn
[Read the article: The al-Marri decision]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wish everyone in America could read this and "get" that we are destroying what this country is and what we love by allowing this administration and like-minded "fear-mongering extremists" to knaw away our Constitution. Of course, it would be nice if everyone would reread the Constitution.
Bush and his folks talk about "activist judges," but by their own terms, they are an "activist administration" that seeks to remake our laws to suit their own purposes.
I am so glad that you write for Salon.
-
Moving Targets
[Read the article: "Endgame": A gloomy forecast for the so-called surge]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This fiasco in Iraq is truly a moving target as, so sadly, are our military folks. It is such a moving target that characterizations about it and what should be done, should have been done, etc. are nearly always offset to suit political purposes.
That is why, as you say, "There's so much wrong with" NY Times reporter Michael Gordon's slurring "Democrats by noting the 'irony' that Rumsfeld was doing what they wanted, trying to get troops out as quickly as possible "that it's hard to know where to begin." Some folks are playing with time and space by mismatching "war" strategies and calls for more or fewer troops in attempts to respin this story. And it's not just a story, as you clearly remind us. Men and women are dying.
President Bush's more recent statement about the importance of not pulling out of Iraq now because it would leave a power vacuum is a prime example of this. It didn't serve his purposes to recognize and promote that that was exactly what he was doing when he ordered the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Sadam Hussein. Of course admitting that, even if he understood it, wouldn't have helped justify his act of war.
Joan, thank you for helping keep us straight on what's what. It's a fulltime job for all of us.
-
Right on, Joan. My comments to Hardball
[Read the article: Bashing Elizabeth Edwards]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with you (and I will watch you peddle Salon tonight, by the way).
Just wanted to share my e-mails to Hardball.
Monday night:
In his advertisement for Tuesday's show (and that's all it is-- a show) and his solicitation of questions for Ann Coulter, Chris Matthews said that regardless of whether you like Coulter, she sells books and gets in the news.
I will not be watching Ann Coulter on Hardball. I suggest that you ask yourself why you are having her on. She is an attorney who has never practiced (according to public, on-air statements made to her by other attorneys who have/do practice and which she's never refuted; she just gets nervous and calls for a change of subject). She calls herself a constitutional attorney, but what credentials does she have? She's no Jonathan Turley. All she is is provocative, but not in any way that moves reasoned discourse along. Why are you having her on? For the same reason she makes her ignorant, often very mean remarks--to get attention. She contributes nothing thoughtful or serious to any discussion. She's not news, guys. And she's not an expert on anything except how to be famous. And she wouldn't get this attention if you didn't play along and invite her on your show to get attention for Hardball.
Hardball must be pretty hard up to put her on.
Tonight:
I just tuned in to Hardball and there you are wringing this thing that you started by having Ann Coulter on the show for all it's worth. Chris Matthews is acting as if this is a valuable discussion and as if he's just a curious bystander--or so it appeared for the five minutes I watched it. Well, enjoy yourselves and get every bit of attention you can out of it. You don't have my attention--not on the show or the website with videos galore of this crap.
Ann Coulter is a hack and you don't have her on for any serious discussions so you must have her on for entertainment. There are plenty of other channels and shows that entertain better.
I think you need to rename your show. You're not serious.
-
Good Job, Joan
[Read the article: Bashing Elizabeth Edwards]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for what you said on Scarborough Country. You did a nice job of staying on point.
-
What a creep
[Read the article: The jerk in chief]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]His attempt to get a laugh at the expense of one of OUR young people is deplorable. And, it's another example of why I take exception when people say, "Well, I don't think President Bush is a bad person."
Joan, I was glad to see you on Hardball minutes ago. :)
-
Not disingenuous
[Read the article: The jerk in chief]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obviously, I'm not inside Joan's head, but I sincerely doubt that she was being disingenuous. She's been around long enough to know that her remarks on this would elicit some crap and they did and she wrote them anyway.
It doesn't take a very big man to make a joke at a child's expense. Wow. Put George at the grownups' table. Bush gets more public time than most of us, but he should have saved the wisecracks for private. He can't take the heat and that's how it comes out. It is very telling, but it's not trivial. Seems to me it was Pat Buchanan (on Scarborough Country) who said that presidents and ex-presidents should be held to a higher standard. Bush can't even chin up to a low bar.
At the recent "debates" at Howard University, Barak Obama said something I'll never forget. I don't recall the question exactly; it was something about health care, education or AIDS prevention, no doubt. But I do remember Obama's response. He said that until we embrace all of the children in this country as OUR OWN, we will not succeed in moving forward and giving them a better present and future. And all of our presents and futures are tied to theirs.
That's what this is about to me. Bush should have gotten it right with this young American the first time, in public.