Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 1824
-
@ Paul Rosenburg
[Read the article: Lying to Congress has become a Republican principle, literally]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In this case, taste is all you have going for you...
I'm not sure I can appreciate the flavour of that comment.
And after that, my just dessert: I'll refrain from any further comments of that "tenor".
Cheers,
-
@ Slackie Onassis
[Read the article: Lying to Congress has become a Republican principle, literally]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]5. What can't be "forgotten" gets ignored (*)
(*) -- see step 2.
Cheers,
-
Who will stay the hand?
[Read the article: The president receives "lessons" from his neoconservative tutors]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Glenn, from the post]: He should simply ignore all of that and continue to obey the mandates of neoconservatism because that is what is Good and his God will be pleased.
"God said to Abraham, 'kill me a son'...." -- R. Zimmerman
3197 and counting. I think we're waiting for Godot.
Cheers,
-
Histerical eedjitcy....
[Read the article: The president receives "lessons" from his neoconservative tutors]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]They also told the President to ignore the fact that other powerful countries and even empires that tried to dominate the world have all collapsed. Those incidents are irrelevant and teach us nothing because -- unlike the Glorious Leader today -- those people simply lacked the Will to Power. Thus:
Second lesson: Will trumps wealth. The Romans, the tsars, and other rich world powers fell to poorer ones because they lacked the will to fight and survive. Whereas World War II was almost over before Americans saw the first picture of a dead soldier, today the steady drumbeat of media pessimism and television coverage are sapping the West's will.
Ask Hirohito. Ohhh ... nevermind.
Cheers,
-
@ Iokannan in the Well
[Read the article: The president receives "lessons" from his neoconservative tutors]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've nothing to add to Glenn's analysis, save to wonder how any human being with even the thinnest grasp of reality could possibly believe this rubbish.
"Divine Whatever" as the ultimate arbitor?
"Will trumps wealth"?
"History will judge..."?
I'm just wondering how any rational person could have voted for the eedjit to be Leader Of The Free World....
Cheers,
-
@ Vast Left
[Read the article: The president receives "lessons" from his neoconservative tutors]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][quoting Sidney Blumenthal]: The subject of Winston Churchill inspired Bush's self-reflection. The president confided to Roberts that he believes he has an advantage over Churchill, a reliable source with access to the conversation told me. He has faith in God, Bush explained, but Churchill, an agnostic, did not. Because he believes in God, it is easier for him to make decisions and stick to them than it was for Churchill. Bush said he doesn't worry, or feel alone, or care if he is unpopular. He has God.
"Self-reflection". Yeah, that's the word. We're talking Narcissus "big-time" here.... '25th Amendment time' has long past come and gone....
Cheers,
-
"The Sounds of Silence"
[Read the article: The president receives "lessons" from his neoconservative tutors]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]David said: .... <*hmmmm ... hmmmmmmmm ... nothing of substance*>
Carry on.
Cheers,
-
@ Roy S.
[Read the article: The president receives "lessons" from his neoconservative tutors]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bush's advisors are now urging a "Triumph of the Will"?
Do they even realize what they're saying?
Have you considered the possibility of "code-speak"? ;-)
Cheers,
-
@ William Timberman
[Read the article: The president receives "lessons" from his neoconservative tutors]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Frankly, I wouldn't mind visiting their embalmed bodies in an elegant mausoleum on the National Mall, but only if I could stick a pin in them -- just to be sure that they were well and truly gone.
How about we take a piss on them ... and then check to see if they won't burn then?
Cheers,
-
@ David
[Read the article: The president receives "lessons" from his neoconservative tutors]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]so perfect
Thank you Arne and Svensker for so dutifully proving my point.
I was commenting on your Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:32:43 AM vacuity. Sorry I didn't put in a timestamp, but I hadn't even seen your latest spew. Of course, if the shoe fits....
It's really interesting. The vocal Right is perfectly content to indulge anti-Muslim rhetoric. And the vocal Left is perfectly content to indulge anti-Semitic rhetoric....
You're missing the boat (and have been for some time). There's a considerable difference between being opposed to the Likidnik/AIPAC folks, and being "anti-Semitic". And FWIW, there's a difference between being "anti-Semitic" and "anti-Zionist" as well (although the latter may be a poorer and/or over-general representation of the hardline pro-Israeli-hawk than "Likudnik"). That you mistake one for the other shows that you haven't the sense that Gawd gave a gnat. Repeat after me: Opposition to Israeli policies (much less hard-line RW Likudnik influence) is not "anti-Semitism"....
And FWIW, your nonsense about Glenn not going after "unmask911" was refuted by Glenn before you ever piped up about it.
... And the imbeciles on this site have no idea that the imbeciles posting at LGF are their mirror image. I love it.
Absolute nonsense. When you see epithets of "yarmulkehead" being tossed around here, come back and talk abot it (and FWIW, if someone used that term here, I wouldn't be the least surprised if Glenn gave them the boot immediately).
Cheers,
-
@ David
[Read the article: The president receives "lessons" from his neoconservative tutors]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]At the risk of flogging the rotting carcass of a deceased equine:
Coulter's success merits attacking her, but it doesn't negate the fact that anti-Semitic thought, and virulently anti-Israel sentiment perilously close to classic anti-Semitism, is today found among the Left and it seems to bother no one.
1). No. Coulter's hatred and vile slanders merit attacking her.
2). Where's the "virulent[] anti-Semitism" here? I will acknowledge that there are some on the "left" that have made anti-Semitic remarks, but they're not hanging around here, nor would they be welcome.
3). Anti-Israeli (and anti-Israeli policy) sentiment is not per se anti-Semitism. There's plenty of Jews that are against (current) Israeli policy ("self-hating Jews", I suppose you'd say, eh?). Equating "anti-Israel" with "anti-Semitism" is simply not accurate (nor helpful), in precisely the same way as equating Israel with Judaism would be wrong.
4). If someone did engage in overt anti-Semitism here, I'd be over them as well. But I am of the firm belief that current Israeli policy is wrongheaded and unproductive. You commented a while back about the Wall. I don't have a lot of problems with a wall. But it shouldn't run through the midst of Arab land, and if Israel is going to shut itself off at the borders, they should also give reparations at the very least for any people whose land was expropriated within Israel, and they ought to get the hell out of Palestine. Good fences are not sufficient to make good neighbours.
Cheers,