Letters to the Editor
Scientician
Published Letters: 523 Editor's Choice: 1
-
UPI
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt, Michael Ledeen and the "bomb Iran crazies"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is owned by Rev Moon. Why is it right wingers can never find a source that isn't tied to some loony?
They used to be respectable. Now keep in mind they are along side the Washington Times in terms of credibility.
as to this:
That's the argument Hillary tried to excuse her third largest contributor, of campaign finance violations. Reid did the same with keeping Abramoff's money. Ignorance is bliss and all that. The thing though, is that Saddam DID provide the money and Ritter DID take it, which is all Anonymous asserted. He is still correct.
I like how you use other scurrilous phony controversies the right has invented to back up this one. Reid took no "Abramoff money" he took money from Abramoff clients, the indian tribes who are in no way implicated in any wrongdoing and are in fact, Abramoff's victims. Giving back that money would actually be a further slap in the face to Abramoff's unwitting victims.
So apparently according to shooter everyone on the left must somehow clairvoyantly know the origin of every dollar given to them for any reason. Ritter refused actual bribes from Saddam's government, and spoke publicly about the attempts. A friend gets some oil revenue (maybe, this is unproven and that document could be forged) and also contributes towards Ritter's anti-war, factually upheld documentary and apparently he and it are tarnished forever by association.
Yes, guilt-by-association, the right's favourite kind of trial, right after trial-by-fire and trial-by-ordeal!
-
hornet driver
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So what did the Great Saint Reagan do when a couple hundred marines died in Lebanon? Why he turned and left.
What did St. Reagan do to the Iranian regime which had just illegally held American citizens hostage? Why he sold them weapons!
The bombers of the WTC were caught, tried and convicted by the Clinton Administration. Please list all the people caught and convicted of anything relating to 9-11 by Bush.
Your claim that "two of them were Iraqi" demonstrates a curious lack of comprehension of the laws of war. That constitutes causus beli to you? What kind of warmongering lunacy is this? Perhaps sitting high and dry in your F-18 war doesn't seem that bad to you, though I would hope a pilot wouldn't live up to the ground soldier view of them.
Finally, as to the Cole, this is the single most non-sensical line that Bush worshippers use to attack Clinton. The cole was attacked in November 2000. So in the two months of lame duck presidency he had left, you think Clinton should have started a war? (the small problem of "with whom?" I will leave as an exercise to the reader). Well Bush Sr. did that to him, and Somalia was the result, which I'm sure you lay the blame on Clinton for everything that went wrong there too. Anyway, the big question is: If Clinton is a weak president for not responding to the cole in the two months he had left, what does that say about Bush for not responding to it in 8 months prior to 9-11? I'd say it makes him at least 4 times as weak.
-
About the Codpiece
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm reading the debate here and it's frankly pedantic and stupid on the part of the Anonymous bush defender.
The point is not whether or not the codpiece being tight or the flight suit itself were requirements for flying in a fighter jet, the question is, Why did Bush have to land on the carrier in a fighter jet at all?
After Dukakis and the helmet, no major politician puts on any safety clothing, helmets or whatnot without having it vetted through aides who confirm the image will be a good one. If flight suits were not attractive, manly clothing, I guarantee Bush would have landed on that carrier in a helicopter (or walked aboard after it docked like it was scheduled to).
So the defence fails. They knew precisely how Bush would look in that flight suit and guaranteed that factored into the decision of how to get him on the carrier (or even to have this event on a carrier at all).
The codpiece label sticks. He found a socially plausible reason to wear revealing sexualized clothing. It's really not that much different than this:
http://www.wtfsrsly.com/nakedpolitician.php
-
Joyride
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's laughable. He could do that anytime without any of us knowing during one of his many vacations, and without the risk of landing on a carrier.
Plus, he had to stop the carrier, delaying the shore leave of 5000 sailors, just for a fucking joyride?
It was pure unadulterated theatre. No other explanation comes close to explaining the available facts as well. Occam's razor.
-
Richard Clarke
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What bullshit! Clarke gave Bush exactly one warning about terrorism, and it was about the threat of cyber terrorism.
Yeah! Wait, what's this:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf
Jan 25, 2001
...We URGENTLY need a principals review of the Al Qida network..."
Sorry for the interruption, you were saying something about Google? Oh yes...
You may be able to fool the other gullible liberals around here, but anyone who can spell "Google" can quickly prove you a liar, pantanel.
Do go on...
-
hornet driver
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please, enough already with the August report! It said "bin Laden determined to strike in the US" which (a) not news and (b) very non-specific.
Do you know what Bush said to his CIA briefer when he was briefed on this non-specific memo?
"Well, you've covered your ass"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901211.html
So spare us poor benighted Bush, who was warned about a group determined to attack in America, whose own Terrorism Czar was trying in vain to tell him about, who instead of activating the full might of the US intelligence and law enforcement appartus to uncover this attack...went on vacation.
To date, I have never heard evidence of a single thing bush did to combat terrorism, or repay al Qaeda for the Cole bombing Conservatives are so upset Clinton didn't bomb someone for, until after 9-11.