Letters to the Editor
Kitt
Published Letters: 2950
-
Seajelly
[Read the article: A new low of mindlessness for our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In closing...try violating the terms of your Probation just once, and see what happens.
-- Seaberry
I don't know? What happens? Israel has for a long time been, and still remains to this day, in violation of scores of UN Resolutions. Should we 'Shock and Awe' Israel?
-
SoiledTP?
[Read the article: A new low of mindlessness for our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well then, I guess I owe you folks apologies for assuming that programming on Air America's FLAGSHIP station was actually affiliated with Air America. Especially, for morning drivetime. LOL.
-- shooter242
Are you in competition with yourself for 'SoiledTP' of the decade award? If so you're competing well with yourself. Only a huge roll of 'SoiledTP could come back into the fray after having made a complete fool of himself and post the above comment.
-
Mind Numbing
[Read the article: A new low of mindlessness for our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"...rather than have the authors of such hope vilified and drug through the dirt. But since that is indeed what is happening to these two, one can only assume that the prospect of positive events is anathema to quite a few here.
The two authors aren't being "vilified and drug through the dirt". Unless, of course, you think that having their own words from the very recent past reposted so that everyone can see for themselves that they have now contradicted their former selves with everything they are saying, and pretending to be, in this last article they have authored equals being vilified and drug through the dirt.
-
Shooter is Smugly and Disgustingly Wrong, Yet Again
[Read the article: A new low of mindlessness for our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]U.S. Toll in Iraq Lowest in 8 Months
Some people might think that is cause for optimism. Apparently you don't. Who cares? Not me. Feel free to mope and whine to your hearts content. You are certainly in the right place for it.
-- shooter242
Will shooter's imbecilic comment posts never cease?
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
23% Rise in Iraqi Deaths in July;
Maliki Government Teeters--Sunni, Da'wa Discontent
2007 saw the deadliest July for US troops since the Iraq War began. It also saw a 23% rise in Iraqi deaths over June. July is like a blast furnace in Iraq, with temperatures approaching 120 degrees F. in the shade. Guerrillas typically lie low in this unfavorable environment, compared to other seasons, and so the casualty rates go down. Instead, this year the killing season has gone on as if it were spring.
Number of US troops killed in Iraq, July, 2007: 74
Number of US troops killed in Iraq, July, 2006: 43.
Not only were the US deaths unprecedentedly high in July, the March through June death statistics were also very high.
And, June saw the highest number of over-all attacks since the war began.
AP adds: "Iraqi deaths rose, with at least 2,024 civilians, government officials and security forces killed in July, about 23 percent more than the 1,640 who died violently in June, according to Associated Press figures compiled from police reports nationwide."
Pentagon spokesmen are attempting to portray this near doubling of July troop deaths as a sign of improvement on the security side, counting from June rather than looking at past July figures-- and I fear some corporate media are falling for it.
I saw Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings on CNN Sunday saying he thought that the violence was less now. (O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack also gave us that uh, optimistic, op-ed about 'a war we could win' in the NYT.) I'd be interested in knowing how he is measuring this supposed fall in violence. If it is the deadliest July ever for US troops in Iraq; if there is a 23% increase in Iraqi deaths over June; if there were more attacks in June than any time since April 2003-- how is that a decrease in violence? Somebody explain that to me.
--Juan Cole
http://www.juancole.com/
-
Re wiggling out of a crime II
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Re: wiggling out of crime
KB4Hire is right.
-- ondelette
Absolutely, without a doubt.
-
Obama's Horrible Speech Identified
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Justin Raimondo writes that Obama is talking 'All war, all the time. Same game, different location'. I agree.
Is the US mainland really in physical danger because the Taliban and the remnants of al-Qaeda are holed up in mountains thousands of miles away? Must we control every cave, every mountaintop in Waziristan before American mothers can feel safe in walking their prams down the street?
It's the old "domino theory" that we used to hear about during the Vietnam era. Only now it isn't just Burma, or India, that we have to worry about: it's the homeland that's in danger, this time. If we don't fight them in Iraq – or Afghanistan, or even Pakistan, according to some – they'll soon be suicide-bombing our malls and setting off nuclear devices in American cities. The politics of fear, while mainly utilized by the Republicans up to now, is a bipartisan phenomenon, and Obama has lately taken the rhetorical threat-level to an orangey shade of red.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11390
-
"Trust Our President..."
[Read the article: Mike Allen and Hugh Hewitt on the politicization of the military]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Lame Man
"...but really I don't think we should judge these things until Gen. Petraeus delivers his report in September."
...I find this every bit as amusing now as I did the first time you wrote it.
-- GlennGreenwald
It's so funny because it isn't the least bit of an exaggeration. The beltway media ++ is as airheaded as the bubble gum chewing Britney Spears appeared to be in her infamous comment, "Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens."
-
Humor, Michael
[Read the article: Mike Allen and Hugh Hewitt on the politicization of the military]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Michael to LameMan:
Are you going to be posting this same comment over and over until September? Perhaps you are one of the reasons Mr. Allen "is so interested and enthusiastic about the communication strategy of the administration."
-- Michael Harold
You probably won't see LameMan admit to this, Michael, but he is making dry humor. You should have read William T's Post a few back about humor.
-
Wrong again
[Read the article: Mike Allen and Hugh Hewitt on the politicization of the military]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Reporters and journalists also need to have relationships with those that can provide new information. That's why it's called "news".--shooter242
No, news is and acronym for North, East, West, South.
-
Sounded good to me...
[Read the article: Mike Allen and Hugh Hewitt on the politicization of the military]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]After looking into Snopes, which usually seems to nail things down well, it seems the North, East, West, South supposed acronym of the word 'news' is a long time accepted, but incorrect, derivation of the word. I stand corrected.
-
Karen?
[Read the article: Mike Allen and Hugh Hewitt on the politicization of the military]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm listening to an introduction now...
-- Karen M
Did it cut out barely into Glenn's turn to speak, Karen? That's what happened on that link when I tried it earlier today.
-
@jebldmn
[Read the article: Democrats' responsibility for Bush radicalism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So, when the Democrats won a narrow victory for control of Congress, I knew that it would be a mixed blessing. They would be able to keep the right-wing from passing more horrible legislation, but would not be able to change much that had been done without either a stronger majority or the president's support. And their constituents would shortly start to blame them for not fixing everything overnight.
-- jebldmm
Nothing of what you wrote in your post has anything to do with excusing the Democrats for passing this bill. There is no excuse for it. Period.
-
@Robert Franklin
[Read the article: Democrats' responsibility for Bush radicalism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Robert Franklin
Therefore they have no reason whatsoever to pay the slightest attention to liberal voices. Why would they? They have your votes and your money and they know it.
But they should fire any political advisor of theirs that does not also point out the critical effect voter passion (i.e., turnout) has on close races.
-- DCLaw
Also there were a number of primaries in 2006 where the DLC put up a "moderate" who was either defeated or didn't even make it into the race because of by someone who was backed by "liberal" Democracts and the netroots (Blue America and such). So it isn't a given anymore that being a Democrat is all you need to be in order to win the seat of a Democrat in the House or Senate. And it most certainly isn't true that they don't need to "pay the slightest attention to liberal voices". Frankly, that kind of loser rhetoric bores me to tears. Why even get up in the morning, Robert?