Letters to the Editor
NotOrbitBoy
Published Letters: 499 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Where's Fitzgerald?
[Read the article: Valerie Plame, covert after all]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I also hope every journalist shines a light on this information. I would like them to include what Salon left out.
Karl Rove did not leak Plame's name to Novak (as was widely, falsely speculated).
Richard Armitage leaked Plame's name to Novak.
When is Fitzgerald going to prosecute Armitage?
Wasn't that the crime that Fitzgerald was hired to investigate?
-
Slippery Standards
[Read the article: Will the real Hillary please stand up?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Gerth Van Natta book mentions Hillary’s speech on the senate floor, as part of the debate leading up to the invasion of Iraq.
Hillary: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."
Ref: http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
Conason addresses the authors’ mention of this speech as “They charge her with credulity in accepting White House assertions about WMD and Saddam Hussein's connections with al-Qaida -- a fair assessment that nevertheless sounds odd coming from former colleagues of Judith Miller.”
Wow. Hillary is guilty of credulity, but really, these authors know Judith Miller, so let’s gloss over it. Hillary’s yet to be tested; she can still prove she has “principle and vision”.
Maybe Conason should blame Hillary’s speech on Scooter Libby.
Joe Lieberman sure didn’t get that kind of treatment from Conason during the last election. Conason is a political hack, his writings prove it.
The questions I would like to ask the Salon faithful,
1. Is Hillary a war criminal?
2. Did Hillary lie when she said there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda?
3. If you agree with the dumbism, “Bush lied, people died”, would it be equally true to say “Bush and Hillary lied, people died”?
-
Please Impeach Bush - and lose
[Read the article: Imperial presidency declared null and void]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I’d love to see congress impeach Bush, to hear the debate, and to watch their poll numbers sink even further. Please contact your congressman or woman or “cash in the freezer doesn’t hide it as well as Harry Reid crook” and urge them to impeach Bush.
Blumenthal and many letter writers rant about Bush’s “imperial acts”, the destruction of the constitution, and then follow with examples of how the courts have used the constitution as a basis for limiting what Bush can do. That sounds like the constitution is working, not being destroyed. It also sounds like a strong case for appointing judges who look at the existing law to make decisions, as opposed to writing the law themselves.
We dropped a guided missile into the building where Zarqawi and his cohorts were meeting and blew them to smithereens. This was a meeting of the members of Al Qaeda in Iraq. . . (Al Qaeda + Iraq, . . . just like Hillary said). I hope no one objected to that, or do you want to add it to the list of impeachable offenses?
You can argue the legality of Bush’s detention and interrogation tactics, which is a good and important debate to have. But when the argument devolves to weekly rants based on paranoid fears and inconsistent (irrational) theories regarding Bush’s motivation, it really makes you look ignorant.
Keep it up.
-
@DrJohn
[Read the article: Ann Coulter gets what she deserves]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]DrJohn, you ask the question “in what alternative universe is a comment about political assassination humorous?”
I’ll try to answer.
For starters, Joan Walsh didn’t give you the full quote regarding assassination.
The following paragraph is from SFGate.com (San Francisco Chronicle). It puts the comment in context.
"If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot," Coulter said Monday, picking up on remarks made by HBO's Bill Maher. Maher suggested in March that "people wouldn't be dying needlessly" if Vice President Dick Cheney had been killed in an insurgent attack in Afghanistan.
To answer your question, the universe in which Bill Maher lives thinks that political assassination is humorous.
I don’t think Bill Maher’s comments are funny. I don’t think Coulter’s comments are funny either.
When we get outraged at the political pot-stirrers, the people who incite emotional responses to get ratings, money, and fame, let’s get outraged at all of them. Not just the ones that we disagree with politically.
Is anyone offended that the Edwards campaign is using this to generate money?
Anyone offended with the writings of Joe Conason and Sydney Blumenthal?
-
Crichton is Right
[Read the article: Rachel Carson's birthday bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This article supports the notion that failure to promote the use of DDT has resulted in many unnecessary deaths. It also gives credence to the notion that US policy towards DDT played a role in its restricted use world-wide.
1. The article cites the success of South Africa in their use of DDT to minimize malaria, and save lives. The author makes it clear, by example, that DDT works.
2. The article cites the fact that WHO decided in 2006 to actively back the use of DDT.
WHO is strongly influenced by US policy. Why in the world would it take WHO so long to realize and promote the value of DDT as a means to reduce deaths from malaria?
Political influence led to an irrational view of DDT that clouded their vision. It prevented WHO from seeing the obvious. That lack of vision persisted for decades. This in turn resulted in unnecessary deaths.
That is how people like Michael Crichton come to the conclusion that DDT hysteria (an emotional response) trump the science, and lead to bad decisions.
Carson vs. Hitler, . . who cares? That’s a soap opera. It’s the science that matters.