Letters to the Editor
maureenodonnell
Published Letters: 590 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Xrandadu Hutman
[Read the article: Hillary's time of troubles]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'll answer all your questions and nobody is paying me to do it. I live on the other side of the world and I don't have a blinkered vision as you seem to have. The American election has'nt yet generated intense interest in Europe. It was after Christmas (that's what I call it) that I took any interest and I wandered on to this site. For a whole month now I've read the cacophony of "Hillary Clinton is divisive!, "Hillary Clinton is polarising" with no explanation whatever accompanying these bald statements. I began to wonder about the motives of people who were spurred on to repeat such hateful thins with monotonous regularity. The night I saw Barack Obama with downcast eyes, muttering "You're likeable enough, Hillary", I decided "I don't like you, Barack" because at that moment the Obama mask had slipped. Apart from that, the level of vilification coming from Obama supporters (Huffpo is "the pits" altogether) further turned me off, including the accusation that I'm a troll (a word I refuse to acknowledge as having anything to do with standard English). I read, over and over, that Hillary Clinton had voted for the war in Iraq but I knew, because it was extensively covered in Western Europe, that it was your Head of the Chiefs of Staff of the American Armed Forces who had made a vehement argument for military action in Iraq. British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, believed him and sent British troops to Iraq to support yhe American invasion. Prime Minister Aznar of Spain believed Colin Powell and did likewise. So why is it so wrong for Hillary Clinton to have believed the pre-eminent General (Colin Powell) who was lokked on as a person with moral authority? Both London and Madrid suffered for supporting the US with many innocent passengers on their sub-ways killed and mutilated.
Now Mr, Hutman I have two very small questions for you. Colin Powell was two months short of his 66th birthday in February 2003 and what political career would you envisage at that age for a man with no political experience whatsoever? I'll try to be polite, but I think you're making all this up. You also claim that Hillary Clinton "partly led" support for the war. Which part was for and which part against? I believe in facts and not a whole load of rubbishy chatter about "divisive" and "polarising", as I'm sure you do too. So I eagerly await your answer on Colin Powell's putative political career, whilee hoping that he got a good pension for his service to the State. Your explanation of "partly led" will also be welcome. It's getting late here, in this part of the globe, so a reasonably quick reply would be much appreciated.
-
What a lorra, lorra laughs, Ericl976ceYou really are very amusing because so so evidently know nothing about the Arthurian legend
[Read the article: Hillary's time of troubles]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Arthurian legend is part of Celtic cultur so allow me to enlightn you. Arthur's life was not a bed of roses because his wife, Guinivere, had a "hot" romance with the knight Sir Lancelot. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Guinivere was "cool" and "hot" simultaneously which makes about as much sense as your assessment of a presidential candidate as being "uncool". Is it Hollywood or the Whie House you have in mind? By the way, Arthur is part of Celtic mythology and I wonder why multicultural America needs to purloin this legendary figure for more ridiculous hyperbole about Barack Obama.
I'm still waiting for Xrandadu Hutman's reply. I do hope he hasn't stood me up.
-
AJ Calhoun, "Thank you indeed, kind sir, she said"
[Read the article: Hillary's time of troubles]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please don't attempt to talk down to me. I wasn't "trying" to say anything. I said it! What's more I'm perfectly aware of your equivpcation. So "The Good Soldier", as you put it, is blameless because he was "only obeying orders". I suppose you've an extensive knowledge of the Nuremburg Trials when Nazi official after Nazi official in the dock mumbled that he was "only obeying orders". Your reference to "the Good Soldier" reminded me of the novel and I became quite angry. Your exculpation of Colin Powell is gross. He came to the UN with a pack of lies or misinformation - since you're so good at double-talk you're bound to find the suitably insipid word. This was the neocon's war and Powell was a "patsy' (I'm allowed to use that word, I suppose, considering where I'm from), a stooge or a wicked manipulator. You can soft-soap it as much as you like but I think he has a big responsibility to the people who were virtually massacred in London on 7th July almost three years ago and also those whose lives were destroyed forever in Madrid. For your information, a Polish baby who was only 8 months old was killed in the Madrid bombing. In future, your highedt-ranked military officer will have to be given a lie-detector test before he urges people to put the lives of their young on the battlefront. As for Obama, "marahalling" global support, he can take a good run against the wind for himself and even the word "marshalling" tells us all we need to know about who/what thinks it's giving the orders. You should read Robert Graves book about World War 1. It's called "Goodbye to all that". In my little patch on planet Earth, it's now 10:30 p.m. so I have no intention of staying up half the night responding to your propagand on behalf of former General Colin Powell. I notice that Xrandudu Hutman has "done a runner". I suppose you decided to come on instead of him as he was tying himself up in knots. Unfortunately, you really haven't done any better; as Macbeth said "Murder will out".