Letters to the Editor
mattwa33186
Published Letters: 432 Editor's Choice: 45
-
Why are you dumbfounded?
[Read the article: What you missed while watching "Deal or No Deal"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Aside from your obvious prejudice against Paul and Libertarians in general, that is.
Paul does not want to privatize everything, he wants to return almost all government programs to the States - shockingly, this is exactly where things like education and welfare are supposed to be - and let private industry pick up the responsibilities that are supposed to belong to them. Yes, he wants to do away with Social Security, another program I see listed absolutely nowhere in my copy of the Constitution. Since SS was, ostensibly, created as a safety net for people who lost their pensions to the mass bankruptcies of the Depression, we don't need it anymore since, ironically, Mr. Clinton's initiative to allow your retirement plan to move with you from job to job does exactly the same thing without the burdensome annoyance of being an un-Constitutional socialist program.
As for wanting to withdraw from various global organizations, that only means that he feels that we should act in our own best interests instead of those of 189 other countries. No NWO conspiracies required there. Most of the UN does not have the needs and desires of Americans at heart. In case you have forgotten, that's exactly what our government is supposed to do.
The best government is a small government. Do you disagree with that sentiment?
Some of Paul's ideas are bad - same as every other candidate. Some are great, as opposed to just about every other candidate. Some will never fly, because the citizens won't want them. But ultimately we would wind up with a smaller, less intrusive federal government that actually speaks to issues instead of finding new ways to spin socialism and big government as a good thing.
-
More first use
[Read the article: What you missed while watching "Deal or No Deal"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We adhere to our own special flavor of no first use policy. Since officially we have no chemical or biological weapons of our own (bullshit, I know, but thats our story and we stick to it), and we consider chemical and biological weapons to be weapons of mass destruction, our policy calls for us to respond to chemical or biological attacks with nukes.
We would have been within our policies, which are known to our enemies, to use tactical nukes in response to the chemical attacks our troops faced in both wars with Iraq. We didn't, but Sadam could not have said he wasn't warned.
-
The only leniency they should be campaigning for
[Read the article: The Libby lobby's pardon campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is a long drop and a large knot to the left, so he won't suffer much on the gallows.
Treason is treason, and providing aid and comfort to a traitor is treason as well. We were a better country when we knew that.
-
Considering the crime?
[Read the article: The Libby lobby's pardon campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hope you are being sarcastic.
The crime is obstruction of justice in an investigation of treason - not just a capital offense, but the capital offense. Aiding and abetting treason (which is what this amounts to) should warrant more time than a third DUI or failure to pay income tax.
If we hung his ass (as we rightly should) or at least gave him life without parole in maximum security, the next guy wouldn't be so willing to cover up for his boss when he abused the power of his office to settle a petty vendetta by divulging state secrets and risking an agent's life.
I'd feel better if he had to do his time in one of those Iraqi towns his masters claim love Americans so much.
-
Elephantman
[Read the article: The Libby lobby's pardon campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As the prosecutor and the judge both pointed out, much to the dismay of Scooter's defense attorney's, obstruction of justice charges - by their very nature - can't rely on indictments or convictions for the underlying crimes for support. If that were required, we could only convict those who tried and failed to obstruct justice, and never those who succeeded (like Libby).
But you knew that.
-
You mean the Bushie followers lies go on and on?
[Read the article: The Libby lobby's pardon campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Geez, Elephant, that's not even spin, its outright bullshit.
Libby was not convicted just for talking to 3 reporters, he was convicted for lying when he said that he learned of Valerie Plame's position from Tim Russert when he actually learned of it from someone higher in the executive than him. That's obstruction, since he kept the investigators from getting to the actual traitor. It's also the only felony he's actually doing time for since it carries the longest sentence and he's serving concurrently.
Since the list of officials higher than Chief of Staff for the Vice President is extremely short, you don't have much to choose from there. Take your pick, it doesn't have to be Cheney but its him or maybe 4 other guys.
-
Almost missed that
[Read the article: The Libby lobby's pardon campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And there you go again, whining about how no one was charged with outing Valerie Plame when the reason for that is Scooter fucking lied. Lucky for us the judge and prosecutor actually understand the law.
-
Wrong again, pachyderm
[Read the article: The Libby lobby's pardon campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If someone in congress actually grew some balls and formally called for Bush's impeachment, the vote would be nearly unanimous in favor. Almost no one who voted against it could reasonably expect to be re-elected.
28%
28%
It bears repeating.
How many congressmen are secure enough in their office that they can afford to stand up for a guy that 72% of Americans hate? Not enough to save his ass.