Letters to the Editor
fnorple
Published Letters: 36 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Enigma
[Read the article: Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I continually scratch my head wondering – why? Why was Bush so hell bent on attacking Iraq? It seems clear that all the arguments he and the rest of his administration used was clearly propaganda and he and most of the inner circle knew they were lying to us – but why? What did they think would happen? Was it simply a ‘noble’ attempt to democratize the Middle East at the point of a gun? Did they really think we would be greeted as liberators like the WWII soldiers freeing countries from German occupation? And once a new democratic government was flourishing in Iraq, did they think surrounding countries would simply follow suit – could they really be that dumb and naive? They have and continue to use the threat of another 9/11 to create fear and rule with a mob mentality even though they know, and have openly admitted, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. What is their point? Is it simply to keep the money flowing to the military industrial complex so they and their friends can get rich off of war mongering? I just don’t understand how such people work and that is why we must continue to dig for the truth and find out why. My best guess is that Bush, being a born-again-christian, thinks he can bring about Armageddon and the second coming of Christ. Its about as good an explanation as any other at this point.
-
Do you like to be lied to?
[Read the article: Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Those of you who feel it necessary to defend Bush to a fault – do you like to be lied to? Prior to the war Bush and Cheney clearly implied that Saddam was partially responsible for 9/11. More recently Bush has said he never thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11. The man is a habitual liar and it doesn’t take much to find the evidence. Let’s take the statement that Bush said he was surprised that Paul Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army - Bremer said he was fully in the loop and Bush gave him his blessing. Then Bush said Chief Justice Roberts was the one who suggested that Harriet Myers should be nominated to the Supreme Court – Roberts quickly sent a clear statement from the Supreme Court communications office saying he never suggested Harriet Myers should be nominated to the Supreme Court. Maybe it comes down to who you want to believe since many of Bush’s statements are disputed by other reputable people and we are all left wondering – who the hell is telling the truth? Not Bush!
-
yea, right, oj
[Read the article: Breaking the Iraq stalemate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and what about britney on mtv and the redsox are only 3 games ahead of the yankees and doctors say there are new ways to enhance your sex life and bush is caught illegally spying on americans and what about those worse dressed holywood stars at the emmys and can you believe another athlete was caught using drugs and bush lied about why we had to go to war and john edwards got a $400 haircut and have you seen the movie with the sexually trash talking middle school boys and polar bears are drowning due to a lack of ice flows and the patriots cheated in their game against the jets - it is truly amazing the world of total distraction we have created where we must wade through a constant stream of banal mindless pabulum preventing from seeing the crap for the pool of raw sewage in which we are all drowning. someone please deliver me from this hell on earth.
-
Oh you big fat drama queens
[Read the article: Breaking the Iraq stalemate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]do all a favor and show us what a man you are and blow your fucking brains out!
-
I would but I'm afraid
[Read the article: Breaking the Iraq stalemate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]coward
-
The problem is
[Read the article: Dan Rather stands by his story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]- main stream media is already discrediting Dan's case against CBS. I've already heard an NPR report deriding him for his lawsuit, making it sound like he is some egotistical crackpot who doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. Because of that NPR report, I approached this article with some skepticism. After reading it I'm left with is uneasy sense that no matter what happens with this case, the right will not allow the media to focus on the core issue - was Dan's report on Bush's National Guard record accurate? Instead we are going to get a lot of conservative spin and funny e-mail photos of Dan from our Republican friends and family. It has long been a dilemma that perception is stronger than truth and every day it becomes more and more apparent.
Thank you Salon for not giving up and still trying to focus what really matters.
-
What is the point?
[Read the article: Dan Rather stands by his story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am always amazed how those with counter points of view tend to post distracting letters that don't address the central issue. They will post something like - hey, did you hear about OJ? - to get everyone off topic.
This is not about Bill Clinton or John Kerry or even forged documents. The issue is - were the core facts in Dan Rather's report on w's National Guard service basically on target? Despite the authenticity of some documents, can anyone deny the claims by some that Bush got preferential treatment and didn't complete his service obligation?
I'm amazed at how quick some are to discredit John Kerry's distinguished service on the battlefield while at the same time defend w's questionable service record. In w's case they claim there is no proof and yet with no substantiated evidence they are ready to repeat fallacious accounts about a true American hero.
Anyway, I too am getting off message. I would submit that unless someone can further the discussion about w's Military Service, or lack there of, don't bother posting.