Letters to the Editor
Craig Rhodes
Published Letters: 11 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Does it work both ways?
[Read the article: Taking on a nation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If U.S. law does not apply on Indian lands does that mean that if a U.S. citizen commits a crime on Indian land and then leaves the territory, they cannot be prosecuted except on Indian land and under Indian law?
-
VideoDog editor, Kerry Lauerman, outdoes Faux News.
[Read the article: Cynthia's hair-raising adventures!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Kerry Lauerman, VideoDog editor, has outdone Faux News in his omissions and distortions of McKinney's record. His none too subtle, cute commentaries "...hair raising adventures" are disingenuous, weak attempts at humor but obviously designed to hide his misbegotten contempt for McKinney.
In order to justify the allegations in his editorial comments regarding McKinney he provides links. But if the reader takes the time to check the links he will discover that the evidence supports McKinney against the unfounded commentary by Lauerman as well as the selectively edited videos.
Consider Lauerman's charge that McKinney's "exploits" includes "...raising the question of whether President Bush knew that 9/11 was going to happen". When one goes to the link they will discover that every question McKinney raised on this point was not only legitimate but has been proven correct.
For example, the lead paragraph in the linked article states, "Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) is calling for an investigation into whether President Bush and other government officials had advance notice of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 but did nothing to prevent them. She added that "persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war." Given what we now know about Cheney/Halliburton's no bid contracts, the memo that Bin Laden was determined to attack, Richard Clarke's testimony, recent charges by the 9/11 Commission chairmen about Pentagon lying, it would appear that McKinney was correct if not prescient.
Or the commentary/lie from Lauerman that a Capitol Hill officer was filmed "catching hell" from McKinney for asking for ID. When one views the video link, both McKinney and the officer are smiling and friendly toward each other. Moreover, the so-called video that Lauerman claims exists of McKinney attacking another officer has yet to surface. Furthermore, the charges of racism in the Capitol Hill officer ranks come from many more sources than just McKinney.
Or consider the provided video of Wolf Blitzer's interview with McKinney that Lauerman characterizes as "...an awkward dust up". When one views the video it's obvious that McKinney is taking Blitzer to task for trying to put words in her mouth. She correctly advises that the interview should be rerun in order to hear what she actually said.
Furthermore, to imply that she and/or her staff are anti-Semitic overlooks the fact that AIPAC is on record as working towards her defeat because of her warranted criticism of them and Israel's policies. Also overlooked is the fact that Repubs deliberately skewed the results of her run in the primary by crossing over. There are more distortions and omissions but as Lauerman advises, "...you'll just have to follow the links to read about those."
No doubt McKinney has made mistakes, which don't even come close to the malfeasance and corruption of other members of Congress, but she is the rare Congressperson who has consistently held this administration accountable. If for no other reason she deserves more from Salon than its attempt to assassinate her character and distort her congressional record especially given her courage in speaking truth to power.
As an addendum and before I'm stereotyped, I would like to note that I'm a southern white male and have subscribed to Salon since its beginning and will continue to do so. However, I'm both disappointed as well as puzzled as to why Salon feels the need to go after someone who, from the outset, has fought the fascist regime now controlling our government.
-
It isn't the date that matters.
[Read the article: Cynthia's hair-raising adventures!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think Anonymous is hung up on the date "9/11". It would not have mattered if the attacks occurred on 9/14, 9/10, etc. the salient fact is that the Bush administration knew that an attack was imminent and did nothing to stop it. And McKinney was right on that point as well as others. The record is clear and no amount of revisionist history will change it.
Richard Clarke stated in his testimony before the 9/11 Commission that alarm bells were going off throughout the government. We were also being warned by any number of other nations as well. But instead of doing anything to prevent the imminent attacks, Bush chose to go on vacation. And then when the attacks were actually occurring he chose to sit with an elementary class reading tales of goats.
Again, it is worth noting that McKinney was one of the few brave enough to go against the Rove slime machine by raising legitimate doubts about Bush regarding 9/11 and the slime machine has made her pay dearly. The piling on by Salon and others, like anonymous, is merely gratuitous.
The irony is that BushCo ignored the very real imminent attack that came on 9/11 but then used the threat of a bogus "imminent attack" from Saddam to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Anon, you're aiming your darts at the wrong person.