Letters to the Editor
NotOrbitBoy
Published Letters: 306 Editor's Choice: 4
-
@jordan
[Read the article: What FISA capitulations are Democrats planning next?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Calm down, re-read the letters.
I never stated that the rule of law means nothing, nor did I state that the President can break the law whenever he pleases.
The Bush administration is aggressively using surveillance of foreign telephone calls. Most of the salonistas assume evil intent. I suspect that the surveillance is a valuable tool to prevent terrorism. I acknowledge that I cannot prove this.
So I try to take the opposite view, and I asked for someone to provide an opposing explanation. To explain what is motivating the Bush administration.
Some semblance of logic would be nice.
-
@ Several
[Read the article: What FISA capitulations are Democrats planning next?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]@ Scientician: How does the spying empower Bush? Any evidence that they have used it against political opponents? (reminds me of the ex-bouncer in the Clinton admin who got FBI files on Republicans). If Bush is spying on political opponents, why are they giving him the go ahead to keep it up? Do you know more than his opponents do?
@ Denning: We are, at times, dealing with a smart enemy. 911 proved that. Hijacking and flying jets into buildings doesn’t just happen. Doing it simultaneously with 4 different aircraft takes a lot of planning. It was a sophisticated attack. It took smarts. Sophisticated bad guys can do a lot of damage. As technology advances, and becomes more readily available, so does the threat that they pose. Just maybe Bush is worried about that.
@ orbitboy: I’m not stalking, I’m stealing. . . your name.
@ Paul Dirks: Thanks for the back and forth. You suggest that Bush over-reacted to 911, and ever since has broken the law in order to cover-up that over-reaction. I can’t refute it, but I doubt it. He has too many allies among his opponents for me to believe that.
@ Those that don’t like me: I’m not offended. I asked a question, and got more accusations hurled at many that honest attempts at an answer, hence my overuse of the term salonista. Several of you earned it.
-
Didn't Kennedy...
[Read the article: Arthur M. Schlesinger's playbill for the American century]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Didn't the Kennedy administration;
1. Cut taxes on the rich.
2. Increase defense spending.
3. Via a proxy army, invade a foreign country.
That's liberalism I could live with.
-
Wrong all the way, again
[Read the article: Nuclear hypocrisy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joe is wrong about the issue of knowledge, and the development of sophisticated weapons. Wrong all the way.
The distinction between “knowledge” and “industrial capacity”, as if they were two separate and unique concepts, is wrong. Iran has the wealth, and if provided the knowledge, will develop the industrial capacity (if it hasn’t already). Industrial capacity is the building and operating of equipment and processes in order to produce something. Given the knowledge, Iran certainly has the wealth to develop the industrial capacity to build what they want.
How do I know this to be true?
Answer: Dirt poor North Korea did it, or at least got close.
I highly doubt that every step in the design and construction of a nuclear device is in the public domain. To separate knowledge and industrial capacity in the manner that Joe does is ignorant.
It’s all about knowledge. The president’s remarks were directed at those who may be providing that knowledge.
Wishful or inconsistent thinking:
“Neither the Iranian president nor the mullahs who actually control the Islamic Republic can possibly imagine that their state would survive for long if they launched a first strike against Israel -- or even looked as if they were preparing to do so.”
On what basis would the Iranian leaders conclude that? I assume Joe is implying that the US would respond, and following that response, Iran would no longer survive, to use Joe’s words.
Joe wants to claim that the US has a big stick that it will swing if Iran even looks to be threatening, and that obviously Iran will cower. Therefore, we don’t need to get too worried about this.
Apparently Joe doesn’t read Salon, or his own columns. In those columns you will find arguments that the US should NOT engage in pre-emptive attacks, that they should NOT invade foreign countries, that they are the world’s bully.
Yet Joe still wants to believe that we can threaten Iran into submission. He is relying on a belief, a principle, that hundreds of salonistas condemn.
-
Eating Meat Saves the World
[Read the article: Earth to PETA]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's obvious.
If you eat meat, particularly herbivores, it's a win-win situation.
1. The animal you eat dies. It no longer breathes O2 and spews CO2 into the atmosphere.
2. The plants that the animal would have eaten continue to live. They continue convert the earth destroying CO2 back into O2.
Vegetarians cause global warming.
Where's my Nobel?
-
Objectivity from Sydney?
[Read the article: Journalism and its discontents]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A lecture from sydney including the topic of objectivity.
What next;
Campaign finance law from hillary?
Monogomy from bill?
Real estate investing from harry reid?
Teetotalism from ted kennedy?
Salon is all about cheer leading for one side. Objectivity is a concept it most certainly does not embrace.
-
Fear mongering as a response to fear mongering
[Read the article: I'm dressing up as a melting polar ice cap]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]billy criticizes President Bush as a fear mongerer, and uses fear mongering to do it. It's juvenile.
Once again, a classic example of liberal logic.
-
@Anonymous
[Read the article: Journalism and its discontents]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with most of your examples of people who should NOT be lecturing us about various behaviors. Especially larry craig, in addition to squatting technique, if he doesn't know how to plead, what is he doing writing our nations laws.
Back to my original post, can we agree that sidney blumenthal makes an awful poster boy for the topic of "objectivity", that salon is anything but objective? . . . or are you a hard core salonista?