Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 1824
-
@ Titus Pullo
[Read the article: Further politicization of the U.S. military's public statements]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nowhere in this blog, other than Glenn's repeated bleating that Hewitt got "an exclusive interview" (just what the hell is that anyway?) does it say Hewitt did not have to follow the same rules as every other journalist.
Ummm, you're a moron. Hewitt did not have to go to Iraq to get his interview, and thus obviously didn't have to fill out the "request for embed" forms they sent Glenn that you were responding to.
And FYI, Glenn explained "exclusive" above in the comments. Learn to read (and practise that art), azo.
Want to look like more of an eedjit? Well, just keep on posting.
Cheers,
-
@ The Canadian
[Read the article: Further politicization of the U.S. military's public statements]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am merely asking for what reason he is not interested in commenting on the particular topic of 9/11.
He explained it in his very first response to you (which may well have been more than you deserved). I suggest you examine that (again), and his subsequent comment, and then go 'do the right thing'.
Cheers,
-
Re: crazylibertarian
[Read the article: The Weekly Standard's "9/11 Generation"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][L.W.M.]: Sounds like Bipolar Disorder. Take your Lithium.
I'd recommend Haldol for him.
Cheers,
-
@ nabbifuzzmlgixofit
[Read the article: John Yoo -- then and now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is absolutely no comparison between Clinton's assertions of executive privilege and those of the Bush Administration.
Quite true. I detailed the differences above.
Cheers,
-
*HRRRMMPPH*
[Read the article: John Yoo -- then and now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Kit, would you kindly ignore bucky1?
Bucky1, would you please STFU concerning your personal issues with others?
Thanks,
-
@ dreamlessfish
[Read the article: John Yoo -- then and now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]At Boalt, I took a number of classes from John Yoo. He's an excellent, fair professor and does know the constitution inside and out.
I missed the 'opportunity'; Yoo was teaching the likes of CivPro that the newbies get when I was there, with Choper and Post doing the ConLaw stuff.
What we have to work with, WRT Yoo's Constitutional law, is in hs memos, and it's an ugly sight. What we have to work with here is Yoo's Op/Ed, and it's a steaming pile of horse dung, simply factually wrong (and with essentially no legal argument; after all it's agitprop, not a legal brief), portions of which I dissected above.
Cheers,
-
Spot on
[Read the article: What were the pre-2005 "other intelligence activities"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Glenn, from the post]: That is what Alberto Gonzales does. He lies to protect the President. And the President will never fire him. Gonzales isn't keeping his job despite his willingness to lie to Congress, but because of it.
Indeed. This last episode is so brazen, I think that what must have happened is they decided to send him out to keep on lying and not budge an inch, having decided that they can stonewall or squelch any attempt to prosecute him or cite him for contempt (as they're doing with the Miers stuff). "L'etat c'est moi, go f*ck yourself...."
Cheers,
-
@ casual_observer
[Read the article: What were the pre-2005 "other intelligence activities"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Putting aside Abu's careful distinctions that strongly smell of multiple programs--just for the moment. Why can't Comey's testimony be interpreted as saying that the program--just one program-- had turned more agressive, and that this was caught by DOJ's periodic review?
Good point. Amongst other things, Comey was a relative new-comer to evaluation the program, IIRC (I think he got moved to the position where he was evaluating the legality of it perhaps in 2003 or so), and the disapproval may well have set in late, as Comey and others of similar mind started looking into what was actually going on more than superficially.
Also, whether there's a "program", "bundle of projects [or efforts] within a program", or "multiple programs" may well be a matter of semantics (as Gonzo's testimony seems to reflect). But no matter; let's find out the specifics of the "programs", "projects", "efforts", etc., and then we won't have to worry about the semantics and can start discussikng substance.
Cheers,
-
The Red Queen before breakfast
[Read the article: What were the pre-2005 "other intelligence activities"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]["Sh**ter" then (a couple'a minnits ago)]:
You have to love it when someone that confesses ignorance, while simultaneously denouncing the object of that ignorance as illegal.
["Sh**ter" now]:
Apparently, the people that know their rights don't know that they still have them. Unless you want to cross the border with data, your person, or commerce, all the rights ennumerated above remain intact.
Behold the wonder. Alice would be sooooo flummoxed.
Cheers,
-
@ Svensker
[Read the article: What were the pre-2005 "other intelligence activities"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]ROFLMAO. You managed to do in one sentence what takes me a couple of posts. My hat's off to you....
Cheers,
-
@ casual_observer
[Read the article: What were the pre-2005 "other intelligence activities"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Where are the damn whistleblowers.
Indeed. That, more than anything else, is what sunk Nixon's boat; without it, he may well have managed to brazen out the storm.....
Cheers,
-
Re: Whistleblowers
[Read the article: What were the pre-2005 "other intelligence activities"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I like the idea of a full page ad in the NYT promising $1M to anyone who comes forward with evidence that will sink this rotten ship once and for all. Surely go God, the ACLU can find such a sponsor. George Soros? Hell, I'm sure if they started a drive the cheques would come pouring in.....
In the past, Larry Flynt has given money to other "whistleblowers" for similar information on different types of malfeasance (pardon the pun), but perhaps he could be inveigled into doing so for this cause....
Cheers,
-
The mind of a neocon: "By all means possible"
[Read the article: What were the pre-2005 "other intelligence activities"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sh**ter: Because from the beginning it has tried to defend the country by all means possible, and when it pushed too far and butted up against the Supreme Court,..."
Methinks you misspelled "itself" and "the Constitution and laws of the United States".
But the "by all means possible" is very revealing.....
Cheers,
-
Inadvertent honesty
[Read the article: What were the pre-2005 "other intelligence activities"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sh**ter: "... to eject Bush from an office fairly won by sheer volume of lies, half truths, and distortions ..."
Not what I'd call "fairly". YMMV.
Cheers,