Letters to the Editor
emaydon
Published Letters: 55
-
Who says who is winning?
[Read the article: What "winning" in Iraq looks like]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Far be it for me to side with the Bushies, but it is worth noting that back in August, when the British announced their intention to leave Basra, the Bushies were saying:
"The British have basically been defeated in the south"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601401_pf.html
Kind of hard to declare you have "won" when your ally doesn't share that view, and neither do the soldiers who were actually doing the fighting:
“To anyone who thinks we have made [Basra] a better place, we haven’t.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3056729.ece
-
Half agree on the "poofing his hair" point
[Read the article: Peggy Noonan is a serious "grown-up"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm British, and this is a term that is sometimes used over here, generally in reference to women's hairdos. So I agree that there may be an aim of feminizing Edwards with this choice of language - certainly jives with the intention behind reminding us of the video - I don't however see this as a Coulteresque slur.
Much as Noonan's commentary is forgettable right-wing tripe, I don't see her as inclined to the crass vulgarity that you are seeing here.
This, below, is however memorable for its classic Noonan vapidity and hopeless use of the English language:
"We would like a candidate who does not appear to be obviously insane."
Can someone explain how one can "appear to be obviously insane"? Or not? Or has Murdoch already canned WSJ subeditors?
Anyways, I had a great mentor several years back who believed that an effective way to spot a stupid or disingenuous writer was through the careless and redundant use of adverbs.
Res ipsa loquitur.
-
The neocons do not like Bloomberg...
[Read the article: Michael Bloomberg: Trans-partisan savior]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This takes nothing away from the quotes you have reproduced, but Bloomberg is generally assumed to be considering a run with Chuck Hagel, who is pretty old-school on foreign policy despite his vote for the Iraq War.
This NY Sun article from May this year is hardly a ringing endorsement for Bloomberg, especially were he to team up with Hagel.
http://www.nysun.com/article/53802
As a result, I disagree with this characterization:
"Bloomberg is basically just Rudy Giuliani with a billion or two dollars to spend to alter the election."
Bloomberg does not have Rudy's Kerik-style corruption baggage, and at the moment anyway is not a lunatic with respect to Middle East policy.
Where the Bloomberg-Hagel alliance does raise eyebrows is that this is a pairing of a social liberal with a social conservative. However, it's hard to imagine they would diverge on a (traditional GOP) pro-big business agenda, and I'm inclined to believe they see eye-to-eye on foreign policy because otherwise it's hard to understand why they should be drawn to one another.
As you are wont to say, this is not meant to be a post in support of Bloomberg, and whose to know if his political posturing is just that. But to put him in the same whackjob category as Rudy seems a bit of stretch.
-
What is this "inclination" of your based on?
[Read the article: Michael Bloomberg: Trans-partisan savior]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1. Continued rumor of partnership with Hagel, who has the distinction of being flagged by the NY Sun as weak on terror and anti-Israel.
2. Nancy Soderberg apparently advising Bloomberg.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/21/bloomberg-crams-on-foreig_n_73776.html
3. This speech, although mainly on greenhouse gases, included this paragraph:
"That means ending the “go-it-alone” approach to foreign affairs that has never served America well. It didn’t work in the 1920s, when we tried to isolate ourself from the world, and it hasn’t work in recent years, when we’ve tried to stand above it, pretending that vital international treaties can simply be ignored."
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/bloomberg-calls-for-tax-on-carbon-emissions/index.html?hp
To your final point - "When it comes to Middle East policy, what differences do you think you see?" - are you really serious in asking this question?
There is literally no-one in Rudy's league when it comes to ME foreign policy. Okay, maybe Tom "Bomb Mecca" Tancredo. But of the leading candidates, none of them come close to Hizzoner.
Let me be clear - I think Ron Paul speaks with more clarity and sense on foreign policy than any of the leading candidates. If I had to create a foreign policy craziness scale of 0-10, with 0 = sane and 10 = crazy, Paul would be 0 and Rudy 10. You are saying Bloomberg would be 10 as well. I'm disagreeing; I don't know exactly where I would put Bloomberg, but he ain't Rudy.