Letters to the Editor
CT Voter
Published Letters: 136 Editor's Choice: 17
-
Getta new speechwriter...
[Read the article: From Bush, more of the same]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And then we can work together on a way forward."
Oh, bulls%$#. This will be eaten up by the press as a sign that Bush is willing to act like a sane human being and rationally consider other options than "staying the course". It's not ever going to happen.
And isn't the "way forward" phrasing simply a rehash of the Administration propaganda from last year? Or 2005?
How freaking gullible are we?
-
From Dec. 6, 2006:
[Read the article: From Bush, more of the same]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Posted on CNN's website:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush may be able to "announce a new way forward" in Iraq by the end of the year, his chief spokesman told CNN Wednesday night.
Condoleeza Rice testified about "Iraq: A New Way Forward" to Congress in January.
Washington Post, Dec. 12, 2006 quotes Bush as saying "an important component of putting together a new way forward in Iraq."
Yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda.
-
Hey Mike, about this:
[Read the article: When Republicans attack]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"We're going to have a lot of fun this fall," Duncan promised
You do that, buddy. Because the general election campaign is next fall. Shoot your wad while you can, dude.
-
<b>But eventually reality bites, no matter what</b>
[Read the article: Whose war is it, anyway?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, it does, and it's going to be a miserable time for us, and the Iraqis, when it does.
Great post.
-
Huh. Did someone spike Graham's breakfast?
[Read the article: Victory in Iraq?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Leaving aside the fact that no one in the Administration and none of the cheerleading Republicans and "Independents" (You listening, Joe?) have operatinally defined "victory", this was pretty direct:
Graham: The question is not whether it's desirable to win, but the likelihood of winning. We all know it's desirable to win, but the likelihood.
What's up with that? Is he trying to cultivate media drools for being independent? Standing up to the President?
-
mlevsen asks:
[Read the article: Victory in Iraq?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Seriously, what is "winning" and who will define it?
The answer to this question is given only to those who need to know. You, me, Iraqis, the American public, Congress, our allies and the rest of the world don't need to know, so quit asking.
-
Such callous disregard for the truth...
[Read the article: Incorrigible]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]should be shocking. Instead, it's just the typical spin du jour from this Administration.
Sept. 11 and its aftermath cost (maybe, who knows, whatever) $1 trillion so that means it's ok that the invasion and occupation will cost at least that much??
-
"Spin cycle"?
[Read the article: Spin cycle]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]More like "Make your head explode with the sheer inanity" cycle.....
-
I need to get a life....
[Read the article: You, too, can be a campaign reporter: Take the test!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]because I knew the answer to way too many of these questions....
-
Well, it all depends on what the meaning of the word "know" is....
[Read the article: Meet the acting attorney general]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So some Justice Department officials knew the Bush administration had approved the use of severe interrogation techniques...so? Clement is blameless unless he was in the room when the approval came. Or maybe not. Is he blameless if he "can't recall" any of the details? Can he actually be described as "knowing" something if he can't remember the information? These and other absurd "Dances with facts" brought to you by our former A.G., Alberto...
And btw, heckuva time to move to D.C., Tim.
-
Tim, you nailed it:
[Read the article: "Soft on terrorism" or soft in the head?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But don't do whatever you do thinking that the Republicans are going to wake up tomorrow and agree that you're just as tough on terrorists as they claim to be
Yep. The Democrats are quite obviously slow AND soft in the head, because this one immutable fact continually evades them.
Democrats = Charlie Brown. Republicans, and the Bush Administration = Lucy.
-
When Republicans attack...
[Read the article: John McCain lashes out at Mitt Romney]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...it is entertaining.
I found this to be particularly amusing:
The most important thing we have in this life is our self-respect. And I'm not going to trade mine for anyone's vote or for any office
StraightTalk isn't going to sacrifice his self-respect for any old office, of course. Just for the Oval Office. Romney should get hammered, as should Straight Talk himself, and Rudy (9/11 24/7) Giuliani--imagine the media frenzy if these candidates were Democrats. I hope McCain next comes out with a speech about serial exagerator Rudy. Maybe then the national media might actually pay attention to Rudy's behavior as mayor before 9/11.
-
It's sometimes referred to as the "validity effect"...
[Read the article: How about a broomstick and a black hat?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When something is repeated a sufficient number of times, people start to believe it. Hence, Iraq, 9/11 and Saddam Hussein--kept appearing together in every official statement from Bush and Cheney. And voila! 2/3 of the American public thought Hussein had something to do with 9/11.
The Republicans are just exploiting this. Hillary-Scary, over and over, until most Republicans will think that. I think, though, that the sheer vituperativeness of it all might be the Republicans downfall. They'll probably overdo it, or someone flacking for them will (similar to Stalkin' Malkin)--I don't think many people are going to particularly take to wingers calling Hillary a vaginal American (thanks, you homophobic hate crimer you, Tucker Carlson).
I'm voting for someone else in the primary, but if Senator Clinton wins the nomination, I'm really looking forward to how the Republican candidate handles the debate. Clinton was beating Lazio, anyway, but his debate performance (in 2000) pretty much sealed the deal, I think, for Clinton. It was a creepy sight--Lazio marching over and shaking his finger at Clinton. Could Rudy be far behind?
-
Lay off Guiliani? Huh?
[Read the article: Drug Kingpins for Rudy Giuliani]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The best thing which could happen is for the republicans to nominate Giuliani.
Best because Giuliani is running strongest against Clinton right now?
Huh?
Traditional media does such a crappy job of reporting on the candidates that whole sections of the country think of Rudy as tough on terrorism, in spite of the reality of his record. If we "lay off" Giuliani, that particular theme is going to influence a whole bunch of voters who won't know about the real Rudy.
In any event, "Drug Kingpins for Rudy Giuliani" will get buried just as "Crackheads for Rudy" did...CNN's The Ticker is reporting that the mob considered whacking Rudy during the 80s....Bet THAT makes it onto Rudy's website.