Letters to the Editor
NotOrbitBoy
Published Letters: 307 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Send him to the holocaust museum
[Read the article: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]All right, let’s see if we can agree to this.
“We do not have conclusive proof that Ahmadinejad, nor senior Iranian leadership, has taken steps to supply arms to insurgents in Iraq.”
Unlike scientists, we cannot perform tests to prove or disprove this assertion. We need to analyze the data we have, and draw conclusions.
Juan Cole says that neo-cons are demonizing Ahmadinejad in order to justify a future war.
What “proof” does Juan offer, as to the neo-cons motive? Why does Juan suggest that their motive is oil and power, as opposed to security? Where is Juan's evidence as it relates to motive? Juan demonizes neo-cons by suggesting that they are motivated by power and wealth, as opposed to securing the world we live in.
What standard are you going to use to assess proof of this conspiracy theory? Will you be as skeptical of Juan, as you are of the evidence indicating that Iran is arming the insurgents?
You don’t have to be a Bush supporter in order to see Ahmadinejad for what he is. He leads a country that supports terrorists, executes homosexuals, seeks to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and is developing nuclear weapons. . . . wait a minute, he justs wants a "change in Israel", . . . I'm sure it will be a nice change.
Ahmadinejad should not be given the benefit of the doubt. And he should not be treated gingerly, just for the sake of taking shots at neo-cons.
If he wants to sight-see, he should go to the holocaust museum in Washington, DC.
-
@slayer, again
[Read the article: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Self-slayer,
You are correct that your most recent post does not mention Bush.
You are incorrect in suggesting that you have not expressed hatred toward Bush, when in fact you have wished him an early death.
See your letter titled “thoughts”, dated Tuesday, July 24, 2007.
If I were wearing blinders, I would not be reading salon.
You make it awfully easy to refute your arguments.
-
Self-slayer: How many lives have you got?
[Read the article: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is getting tedious.
"We will be paying for them until the day they die, which can't come soon enough."
Thanks for posting for all to see.
-
He's a hyper-ambitious phony.
[Read the article: John Edwards banks on sincerity]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's not just the $400 haircut. By the way, why would it be considered "fair" to acknowledge that of that $400 fee, much was spent for transportation? What about CO2 emissions? How much destruction of our planet is due to this unnecessary travel?
Read what Bob Schrum, John Edwards former advisor, has to say about his sincerity, or lack thereof.
He used the tragic story of his son's death as a means to demonstrate his "sincerity". And lied in the process, telling John Kerry that he had never related the story to anyone before.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070521&s=crowley052307
-
Make your claims outside of the senate.
[Read the article: Reid to Limbaugh: You've got mail]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So now sen. harkin is suggesting that Rush may have been under the influence of drugs when he criticized the phony soldier, Jesse MacBeth.
Senators harkin and reid have immunity from slander and libel lawsuits when speaking in such a manner. They should take Rush's advice and make those comments on his show, or in another public forum where they cannot hide behind such immunity.
That would take courage. Don't expect it any time soon. harkin and reid don't want to get into the kind of trouble that Murtha is in, for falsely accusing marines of murder in the Haditha incident.
Do salonista's admire their leaders when they engage in McCarthyism?
-
@Shadow
[Read the article: Reid to Limbaugh: You've got mail]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We know where someone would get that idea.
If harkin believes it, he should have the courage to make the claim without the benefit of immunity.
reid should do the same with regard to his comments.
Rush has asked this of these "leaders", but I don't believe they have the courage to follow through.
Let's see them stand up to their words. Let the chips fall where they may.
-
Keep the debate alive. . . obviously
[Read the article: For Rush, a warm Republican embrace]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]At the end of the day, the people that will want to distance themselves from Rush, will be reid and harkin. Those two bozos stepped in it. Their arguments don't stand up, and harkin has resorted to suggesting Rush was drug induced when he made the statements.
The fact that harkin can't back that up (ex drug abuser is currently on drugs), and will not debate it outside of his protected sandbox, will work against him. Expect more hissy fits, and fewer facts out of harkin. . . if he has the nerve to say anything at all.
I wish jack murtha, the guy being sued for falsely accusing a marine of murder in the Haditha incident, had something to say about it. murtha's lawyers probably have him muzzled pretty good.
The more discussion we have of the phony soldiers (ie. Jesse MacBeth, Bagdhad diarist), the worse will be the reputation of those who hold these con artists up as an example.
A recent poll had congressional approval at 11%. This episode just might push it into single digits.
I like this debate. It is very telling.
-
So you want to know who was spied upon, and why...
[Read the article: What FISA capitulations are Democrats planning next?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'd like to know why Sandy Berger stole classified documents from the National Archives. Maybe he was covering something up?
We don't know, because after jamming the evidence down his pants, he destroyed it.
He said it was an accident.
Here's a challenge for the salonistas; explain the motivation for the Bush administration's aggressive use of surveillance.
How does it empower them?
Is it making them rich?
Get to meet a lot of monicas?
Maybe there are some democrats who have seen success with the program, and what to keep it running.