Letters to the Editor
pinehurst
Published Letters: 36 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Incompetent, passive, feckless
[Read the article: But first, I'll be buying some shoes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As a National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Ms. Rice has been strikingly feckless, passive and incompetent. And I would have to add immoral.
As the incoming NSA only months after the bombing of the Cole, and receiving a number of briefings on the imminent threat of terrorist activities against the U.S. (the most notable being the August 6, 2001 "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S." and the urgent "hair on fire" meeting on July 10 called by then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black,), Ms. Rice's response was total passivity. This was in line with the rest of the Bush-cheney team. As Secretary of State she has been no better.
She has never responded truthfully to questions about her actions or lack of actions. Her appearance before the 9/11 Commission was a primer in the art of obfuscation and deceit, as have any prior appearances before Congress. With the new congress she is especially wary that she might inadvertently tell a bit of the truth under aggressive questioning.
-
The debate format: a demeaning device
[Read the article: The front-runners get along, almost]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While I agree that none of the current candidates are that impressive, what dismayed me more was the idiotic nature of the debate format. Asking candidates for a show of hands or to reply in one sentence, takes the already abysmal level of debates to a new low.
There should be sufficient time to engage in a debate of some depth, and the questions should be ones that require some real thought. Instead of a question such as, 'What would you do as president if you just found out that two American cities were bombed?,' ask, "What changes in domestic and foreign policy would you make to better protect the U.S. from further terrorist attacks and to better respond if such attacks were to take place? You have five minutes to answer."
-
Universal Fascist
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am "conservative" on a variety of issues (although I don't believe these terms have any meaning.). Michael Ledeen goes way beyond "neoconservative intellectual:" He would be technically closer to a universal fascist.
-
Rice as weak and inept as ever
[Read the article: Quien es mas macho?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Rice was weak, passive, and inept as National Security Advisor, and remains so as Secretary of State. U.S. policy in the Middle East is an abomination.
-
Mitt Romney is a thoroughly repugnant individual!
[Read the article: Kerry responds to Taser incident]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's it.
-
A truly dumb idea Mr. Leonard
[Read the article: Should Bush open up the oil spigot?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's suffices.
-
Conditioning
[Read the article: The divine sound of silence]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I would enjoy much more than one day of silence, and object to being forced to listen to anything. But whole generations have been conditioned to have to have noise of some kind always on, whether it's a phone or iPod or pc or TV (or all at the same time. For all the talk about communication, there is less meaningful communication taking place.
-
Technology is not what it used to be; but it should be.
[Read the article: The year in technology]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Technology used to refer to things that extended our lifespans, and enabled us to produce more food and other goods that human life depends on; not gadgetry, especially gadgetry that is focussed on games and entertainment. I would like to see some articles on Salon that emphasize real technological progress, not this superficial stuff.
-
Charlie Gibson's fear mongering
[Read the article: A Democratic donnybrook]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Gibson's question (or rather an assertion masked as a question)that we stand a thirty percent chance of a terrorist nuclear attack was pure fear mongering of the kind associated with Cheney, Bush, Rice, et al. It is the typical journalistic crap of building false assumptions into the questions and hoping the respondent will take the bait and be trapped into accepting the false assumption. Gibson is a disgusting runt in general.
-
Only synthetic candidates wanted
[Read the article: Bitter as hell in Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I voted for Obama and hope that he wins the nomination and the general election because of the three candidates, he appears to me to be the least synthetic. His statement about Pennsylvania is true and is true in many parts of the country. It is interesting that if a candidate says something outside the political establishment's play book of correct things to say, he gets jumped upon by the crazed media and, sadly, the GOP mimic Hillary Clinton. It is refreshing when I hear a candidate say something off the cuff, as opposed to an answer handcrafted by ten political consultants and speech writers.
-
Looking for perfection or anything close to it, is futile
[Read the article: Why Clinton voters say they won't support Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While I would rather have other viable candidates to choose from, and similarly for their political parties, the reality is I don't. So I have to look at the two candidates and their parties, in their current form and as institutions, and see which comes closest to my policy views. On balance, I will vote for Obama, and will support his campaign. He's is not perfect, obviously, and neither is the Democratic Party (far from it). But the Republican Party as it is currently constituted, is morally repugnant. I used to think that McCain had an element, however small, of independence, but that seems to have disappeared entirely, and his advisors, such as Phil Gramm, demonstrate to me that he remains well inside the fold of the GOP as it currently is composed.
-
Geography seems to be the GOP standard
[Read the article: It's the size that counts]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Palin's foreign policy experience amounts to the same thing: Alaska is close to eastern Russia and borders Canada, therefore Palin is a foreign policy expert. Her speech sounded like a middle-school student oral report fleshed out with the necessary amount of "facts" taken from an online encyclopedia.
The issue,though, is not just experience but the quality of mind or intellectual rigor. Barack Obama may be less "experienced" than McCain, but he is superior in intellectual honesty and capacity, in part because of his knowledge of the law and experience as a constitutional law professor at one of the top schools in the country. Therefore I would trust his judgment and ability to reason.
-
Palin is incoherent
[Read the article: The fungible candidate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Palin is not only not knowledgeable but she can barely put a coherent sentence together. I am "conservative" on many issues but I find her selection offensive because it is so cynical and potentially dangerous. McCain and the GOP are responsible for this amoral "do and say anything to win" attitude.