Letters to the Editor
Kitt
Published Letters: 3067
-
Anne Frank
[Read the article: Gonzales' yearlong effort to block Comey's testimony]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"You can see, can't you Kitty, that I'm full to bursting? And now something else. You've known for a long time that my greatest wish is to be a journalist, and later on, a famous writer. We'll have to wait and see if these grand illusions (or delusions!) will ever come true, but up to now I've had no lack of topics. In any case, after the war I'd like to publish a book called The Secret Annex. It remains to be seen whether I'll succeed, but my diary can serve as a basis."
After having brought up the indomitable Anne Frank, I couldn't resist including this bit from her into the conversation. Off topic, but, so be it.
-
Making The Case!
[Read the article: More fallout from the Comey revelations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]unless there is on-record support for this wrenching process--ie a "no-confidence vote--from the republican opposition, the bare-majority democrats should probably avoid the battle.
If impeachment proceedings were to begin against Gonzales, one would have to assume that a case for impeachment would be vigorously put forth. In other words, how about instead of being all wishy-washy about not enough Republican Senators on record for impeachment of Gonzales, the Senate does its damned job and makes their case? Then let the chips fall where they may. This giving up before even going to battle attitude is a loser's game.
-
Impeaching and Convicting Gonzo-Not that tough
[Read the article: More fallout from the Comey revelations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It seems to me that many who state reluctance to impeach Gonzales equate the difficulty of the whole process - including the conviction in the Senate - with the difficulty of impeaching a president. It's not the same thing. Not even close.
For one thing, "The People", wouldn't be nearly as skittish about the impeachment and conviction of a clearly incompetent and dishonest Attorney General as they might be about the impeachment and conviction of a clearly incompetent and dishonest President.
-
A Case to Convict
[Read the article: More fallout from the Comey revelations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Agreed, except that I'm not sure that anyone has raised any particular objection to impeaching Gonzales.
Posters, including you, Fraud-Guy, have warned against impeaching if conviction is not likely. To me, that is the same as raising an objection to impeaching Gonzales.
My point was that impeachment isn't put forward in a vacuum. Meaning that a case will have been made for conviction. A much stronger case than is currently known to the general public. The Republican Senators might not be so cock-sure of themselves about voting to not convict after that case has been widely trumpeted to the public.
-
correcton
[Read the article: More fallout from the Comey revelations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My last post was in reply to Frankly, not Fraud guy.
-
Looseheadprop at FDL
[Read the article: More fallout from the Comey revelations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Looseheadprop has a good writeup over at FDL about impeachment.
http://www.firedoglake.com/
Here's the point I have been trying to make over and over to those frustrated folks who weep and wail in the comment threads about "why won't the House vote Articles of Impeachment?"
Answer, if you are going to shoot at the king, you damn well better kill the king. Congress (House and Senate combined) has only one shot at the target and they know it, bless them. Otherwise, if you shoot before you can convict, history will record both the Clinton blow job impeachment and the Bush shredding the Constitution impeachment as equivalent, tit for tat, partisan acts. They only way to get vindication for the Constitution and the rule of law is to convict. Think how different life would be if Fitzgerald had LOST the Libby case? Ahhh, now you see my point!
Her writeup is mostly about Gonzales but you'd need to read the whole thing to see how she connects the dots to Bush and all.
-
I know what impeachment is
[Read the article: More fallout from the Comey revelations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just to be clear, Frankly, I'm not confused about what an impeachment is. I know exactly what it is. I can see that some of my posts on it weren't clear in that regard. But that was an error in putting down my thoughts. Not an error in understanding the facts of what I meant to be writing about.
-
@Frankly
[Read the article: More fallout from the Comey revelations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Can I take it then that you accept the point of view that impeachment without conviction is an empty gesture?
-- Frankly, my dear
Probably so. That's what looseheadprop seems to think. And I have a lot of respect for her opinion. But I still think there is much underestimation as to how much larger the case would build for conviction if the house were to impeach Gonzales. You can't make your case if you don't 'make your case'.
And I also think there is a lot to be said for having heard enough -too much! - of this 'keeping your powder dry' whine.
-
nablfear
[Read the article: More fallout from the Comey revelations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And it takes very little foresight to imagine what would happen if turned other violent jihadists, like that other liberal icon Jose Padilla, loose on our streets. Exploding dirty bombs would hardly be astonishing.
God bless President Bush for looking after our safety.
-- nabalzbbfr
Hey, I think I saw you the other day. You were crouched down, wearing pissed soaked pants while squealing and whimpering some phrase over and over again that I could barely make out because you were crying it out rather than speaking like regular people.
It was something like, "Georgy daddy, georgy daddy I'm scared. Georgy daddy, georgy daddy...I'm scared."
Was that you, nablsofear?
-
Jonathan
[Read the article: More fallout from the Comey revelations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, as you said, anything is possible, but I suspect the Democrats used the "off the table" line simply because they thought that it was the most politically expedient thing to do. You know? Just one more example of so many others of cowardly behavior?
-
WaPo's Editorial Staff
[Read the article: The administration's FISA falsehoods continue unabated]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Does there ever come a point where a newspaper organization, or its editorial staff, can be legally held accountable for printing blatant lies sourced through the peoples' government which truly do harm to the people? There has to be a line in the sand somewhere about that.
There is no way that even the serial liar, the Editor in chief of the Washington Post, can't know that he is adding to the treasure trove of lies published by his editorial page when he published this article. He should be held accountable...and I don't just mean by being fired.