Letters to the Editor
NotOrbitBoy
Published Letters: 371 Editor's Choice: 5
-
What a Load.
[Read the article: McCain on Iran: Bush all over again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Early in this piece, the author cites former Iranian President Khatami, as a source for the true intentions of Iran. When confronted with explosive statements by the current president of Iran, the author argues that, well, the presidency is just a figurehead, we can pretty much ignore his statements (you know, the ones where Israel ceases to exist).
That is a classic example of trying to have it both ways; “listen to what the president said”, followed by “ignore what the president said, he doesn’t matter.”
Then the author tries to make the argument that ”The bottom line is that Iran is not, and never will be, a serious military threat to the United States”.
Of course, that contradicts the 1980’s liberal argument re. nuclear winter. Back then it was argued that a nuclear exchange could trigger nuclear winter, and lead to the destruction of the earth. In other words, if we are to believe the 1980s liberal bs, a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel is an existential threat to the US (and the world). See the link for a discussion of regional nuclear exchange, and nuclear winter.
Do you guys just make this $#!+ up as you go along? Change your core beliefs at the drop of a hat in order to argue for the cause of the day?
After reading countless articles in Salon where Republicans are depicted as evil incarnate, and then reading this piece, that criticizes the use of the words "Islamist," "jihadist," "Islamic terrorism" and "radical Islam", it’s clear where the phrase “blame America first” comes from.
Nuclear Winter:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061211090729.htm
-
@msbau764
[Read the article: McCain on Iran: Bush all over again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What it has to do, msbau764, is to refute the notion stated by the author that Iran is not a military threat to the US.
If the nuclear winter theory is true, any nuclear exchange threatens the US. Liberals proposed the nuclear winter theory. It contradicts the current liberal argument, that we are overstating the Iranian threat.
I share your concerns re. the use of nuclear weapons. So does John McCain, which is one of the reasons why he considers Iran such a threat.
God bless the unforunate souls living under the current Iranian regime.
-
@msbau, again
[Read the article: McCain on Iran: Bush all over again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It appears we are more, not less, in agreement.
When you say I don't get it, you're wrong. I agree with para. 1 of your most recent post directed at me.
My comments were about this article; the suggestion that since Iran cannot beat the US militarily, we shouldn't overstate the threat. That's a stupid conclusion.
You also appear to disagree with the author when he suggests; "Every Iranian official, and all the clerics including the supreme leader, know full well that an attack on Israel will mean suicide for the regime (if not the country more widely)"
Liberals are the ones that are making these conflicting arguments.
-
@msbau764 - your choice for pres?
[Read the article: McCain on Iran: Bush all over again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]msbau, your defense of Iran is impassioned.
Who do you support in the upcoming presidential election?
Is there a candidate whose views on Iran you support, and if so, why?
-
@mikey
[Read the article: McCain on Iran: Bush all over again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"And as for all this talk about Obama's lack of experience as opposed to McCain's what? fitness for the job? The guy graduated 894 out of class of 899 at Annapolis--a school he no doubt gained entrance to via his father's and grandfather's influence--"
Maybe that's true.
But it is trumped by Sen. McCain's actions while a POW in North Vietnam.
When offered the chance by his captors for a ticket home, John McCain responded with, send my fellow prisoners home first.
I know of no other presidential candidate who has faced a character test like that, nor passed it with such aplomb.
Can you provide an example?
-
@mikey - character
[Read the article: McCain on Iran: Bush all over again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I didn't state anything with regard to character and one's upbringing, nor how it relates to obama. If you think you have psychic powers,give
Nice try though.
I asked if you could provide an example of someone who exhibited such a strong, positive, example of character as McCain did when offered the chance to leave the POW camp.
It was an incredibly self-less act on John McCain's part.
It says a lot more about the man, than does his college grade point average.
-
Line Number One
[Read the article: McCain: "We will take public financing"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election." - barak obama
Now that obama has blatantly broken his pledge, we can soon expect some convoluted logic as to why that by breaking that pledge, he didn't actually lie.
So much for change.
-
@HP - thanks for proving me right
[Read the article: McCain: "We will take public financing"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It didn't take long for the convoluted logic to appear.
-
HP: Learn something about reality
[Read the article: McCain: "We will take public financing"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You can say all you want about John McCain's positions, actions, and you can theorize about his motives. The more paranoid the theory, the better, for the salonista crowd.
None of that changes what obama agreed to previously, and has since done. What he stated in the past, is garbage today.
So much for change in our political landscape.
NY Times - McCain and Obama in Deal on Public Financing
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/us/politics/02fec.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Please don't tell me that the ny times is part of the vast right wing conspiracy.