Letters to the Editor
sajwan
Published Letters: 487 Editor's Choice: 13
-
Maybe not about the Telecoms
[Read the article: Jay Rockefeller channels Dick Cheney's fear-mongering to urge telecom amnesty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]These companies were assured that their cooperation was not only legal but also necessary because of their unique technical capabilities. They were also told it was their patriotic duty to help protect the country after the devastating attacks on our homeland. -- Rocky
What is rocky saying here, that the telecoms were duped? Is that a legal defense for breaking the law? For example, Can I get out of a speeding ticket by claiming, "My friend convinced me it was a 65 mph hour zone, and I didn't know it was really a 55 mph zone." Somehow, I think not. However, if my "friend" suddenly went bi-polar and pulled a gun to my head and said, "Start driving 65, or I'll blow your brains out". That would be a valid defense. That is if a trial actually took place. Therefore, if there was government intimidation or threats, this administration certainly would not want that coming out in a trial and amnesty certainly frees them from that particular embarrassment.
Further the quote suggests the admin lied to telecoms when they said it was legal. The administration once again being spotlighted as dishonest is another reason to skip the trial and go straight to amnesty.
Leads me to think telecom amnesty is not about the telecoms but much more about protecting the embarrassing malfeasance of this administration.
-
Fool me once...
[Read the article: Hypocrite much?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is easy to see how 52% would support a military strike in order to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. WMDs (just the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" has such a cool ring to it for Warmongers, even if it is somewhat meaningless) and the promoted visage of a mushroom cloud over a major US city helped catapult us into Iraq.
You would think a similar trick would not work twice. If you did think that, the 52% show you to be wrong.
-
Bush will...
[Read the article: The relevant president]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"...increasingly attempt to influence government policy by issuing executive orders"
What the hell does that mean? I cannot figure out for the life of me, even taking into account 9/11, how this government suddenly became so dysfunctional.
Bush cannot spend money Congress does not give him.
Bush cannot issue orders that break the laws Congress creates, even for cases of "National Security". Because if he did we wouldn't have the nation envisioned and established by our founders anyways, so what the hell is the use of national security.
What is Congress afraid of? Threaten to impeach him NOW, then immediately thereafter, before getting a response, DO impeach him for not upholding the Constitution. Bullies like Bush, only wise-up when confronted with someone who is able and most importantly totally willing to hurt them at any cost.
-
Imagine
[Read the article: Here's what waterboarding looks like]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The man gave in after 24 minutes knowing he had an out, knowing the people administering the waterboarding would give him the out, knowing the people administering the waterboarding would not kill him. The person in a real situation would not be so re-assured, and instead be in fear for his life if not his sanity.
Imagine if the people in this video decided to mess with him? What if they did not stop after he gave in, but kept going? Would he be so smiley afterwards? My guess is not and he may even want to kill the bastards.
Hmmm seems virtue001 is striving with all his might to get the "must have a brain the size of a walnut" award. Keep up the good work.
-
"We"
[Read the article: It's not just Giuliani]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Wolf, I could get into a long explanation about the percentages and why we actually are bringing down the debt and over the next five years"
Ok never mind the vaporware explanation, just tell me who the "we" is in that statement. The Congress is a democratic majority, Bush is a lame duck president and the chances of the next president being Republican is small, so who is the "we" that is bringing down the debt?
To me it suggests that Duncan is inferring that Republicans are better able to reduce the debt when out of office or the minority party. Thanks Duncan for that clarification.
-
It is about the gender
[Read the article: "Boys against girl," Part II]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It would be great if we were a color blind, gender blind, religion blind, basically everything blind society. But we are not.
A female becoming president of this country is a big deal, gender is an issue and will be part of the political process. If Hillary does get the Dem nomination, a good part of the RNC attacks against her will revolve around her gender as much as they can get away with.
Using 9/11 as Bush, Rudy, and the RNC does is opportunism of the worse sort, blood opportunism. Hillary turning her gender into an advantage in an environment hostile to her gender is not opportunism, it is courage, toughness and smarts.
-
I feel the same way...
[Read the article: Perino on Mukasey: Confirm now, question later]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...about impeachment. Impeach first then ask questions later.
Oh wait a minute, thats the way impeachment is supposed to work. This is a confirmation hearing. It's like when someone interviews a candidate for a job, they can give them the interview after they hire the candidate.
Brilliant. Saves a lot of time in the hiring process.
-
Warning?
[Read the article: Beware the Google]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I would like to imagine he mentioned code pink and moveon by name, to just throw some specially seasoned raw meat to his rabid audience (or maybe it was special liberal doggie treats to his little puppies). But could the same guy who oversaw the outing of CIA operatives/operations and calling war heroes cowards, also have been making an implied threat to those groups?