Letters to the Editor
NotOrbitBoy
Published Letters: 499 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Signs of weakness
[Read the article: Last refuge of the scoundrel]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's start with your version of Harry's statement; "As long as we follow the president's path in Iraq, the war is lost."
I believe he said "This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," (http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272612856.shtml)
What did you change it? Or maybe he tried to replace what he originally said? It looks like you are trying to create a straw man argument, which is pitiful, and a sign of weakness.
Then there's the comment about Cheney, which you "report" as; I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating.". Maybe he said that, he also said "I'm not going to get into a name calling match with the administration's chief attack dog,". A sentence which contradicts itself. Typical of a liberal. Cheney's statement was tough, but I don't believe there was any name calling. Correct me if you can.
Your closing sentence says a lot, shows a narrowness of view, and reminds me of the question I have yet to hear answered by democrats.
"But the end is coming. The only question is how many more people will have to die before it does.".
That would be better stated as "how many more Americans will die before the US pulls out?". Those who propose we leave, have yet to answer what will happen.
I know, I know, it's all Bush's fault.
That still does not answer the question; "how many more Iraqi's will die when we leave?". . . Does it matter?
-
Grow Up Joey
[Read the article: Poor, poor Gonzales]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I see the word incompetent being thrown around a lot. Was Janet Reno’s approval of the raid on David Koresh’s compound, which resulted in the incineration of children, incompetent?
I know we could find many more examples of incompetent leadership, across all parties and levels of government.
The point is, the finger pointing at Gonzalez, Reno, or doesn’t solve anything. It’s just another weekly vent.
The Gonzalez “scandal” revolves around the reasons for firing political appointees. Gee, who would have thought that politics may play a role in determining who is, or who is not, a political appointee?
If you don’t like the process, one which both sides take advantage of, come up with a new one.
Let’s have prosecutors who understand existing laws, and prosecute those who break them, without regard for the consequences.
Let’s have judges who understand existing laws, and make judgments based on them.
That sounds very Republican to me. A judiciary made up of strict constitutionalists.
I read Salon to try and understand opposing points of view, to find alternative solutions to the problems we face.
All I hear is name calling, naa-naa-naa-naa boo-boo stuff. No solutions.
Grow up Joey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh#Raid_and_siege
-
Flames of Hate
[Read the article: All hail the king]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sydney’s columns remind me of stories about Area 51, the Loch Ness Monster, and those ridiculous 911 conspiracies.
In his columns he invents the motive, the reasoning, which drives the subject. He doesn’t prove it, doesn’t support it, he simply claims it.
This sleazy technique can work, because it appeals to the base emotions of a like minded audience. It doesn’t offer solutions, provides no enlightenment. It’s a raw emotional appeal. His crude reference of Shaha Riza is one of many examples. Apparently we are supposed to believe that those are Paul Wolfowitz’s thoughts. Sydney didn’t say it, Paul did.
Sydney fans the flames of hate, . . . and gets paid for it.
Read Hitchen’s column on Wolfowitz and Riza for an alternate take.
-
Spineless
[Read the article: Why Bush hasn't been impeached]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with the author on at least one point; impeachment is unlikely because “The Democrats think it's bad politics.”
I believe that’s called putting politics above policy. If Bush is as bad as has been described in this article, who do the Democrats serve by failing to impeach him? Answer: themselves.
It gets worse. If the war is lost, if a pull-out is inevitable, why don’t the Democrats do everything in their power to make a withdrawal happen now? Save American lives.
I believe that the answer to that question is the same as the one that the author gave regarding impeachment. Democrats gain political advantage with the ongoing war. Drag it out, keep it alive as an issue to clobber Republicans with, and gain power. Don’t solve the problem, benefit from it.
That’s about as despicable as it gets.
By the way, with regard to poll numbers, a recent of Congress found an approval rate of 35%. Not much to brag about there.
I hope Congress impeaches Bush. . . let them show their true colors.
I don't expect it to happen. They lack the spine to do impeach him, and to end the war.
-
Beavis and Butthead
[Read the article: Wolfowitz's tomb]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I read the article and all the letters. I only found one letter (RealName) that mentioned something that I have also observed regarding the commentary about the Wolfowitz “scandal”.
It is telling that these topics are not addressed;
Where is an explanation of the World Bank? Its purpose? A measure of its success, or lack thereof?
Where is a discussion of Wolfowitz’s goals with regard to the World Bank? How successful (or not) has he been in achieving them? How about some specific examples?
Instead we get a bunch of gossip and psycho-babble.
Plus a few references to historical literary and political figures.
I keep reading Salon, looking for suggestions on how institutions like the World Bank should be run. How the neo-con haters would do things better.
I find nothing.
This column sounds like something Beavis and Butthead might say, . . . after they’ve had some expensive schooling.