Thank you, Glenn Greenwald for bringing this change in

how everyone in Bush administration refers to the enemy in

Iraq. It is especially alarming to see military and

NYT pick up on the same thing. Thank goodness for unfettered

local correspondents on the ground and for sources like

MSN which reports on same date of how V.P. Cheney has

operated to influence terrible policies of Bush Admin.

I have a greatgrandfather who fought in Civil War from

Michigan and a Chilton ancester who came to NY in 1774

and left for Canada because he was a loyalist. I think

if any of these ancestors could have looked ahead they

would be pleased that I am able to read Mr. Greenwald

and there is such a on-line medium as Salon.

Dear Mr. Greenwald,

If nothing else catches my eye in Salon,I quickly scroll down to find your column and I am missing it today, 7/5/07.

I am going to get Eric Alterman's column in the Nation

copied to sent friends by regular post. I think Maureen

Dowd may be the liberal's Ann Coulter and I'm dismissing

her comments as less than truthful or discerning.

Thank you for the Helen Thomas interview. She brought

back the joy of seeing a JFK news conference. What a

terrible thing the assasinations of the sixties were

for our country and world.

Rosemary J. Alberts

Rio Rancho, New Mexico

A neighbor and I were talking about out "take" on local

newspaper, Albuquerque Journal. He said he was going to

stop taking it because it was too 'liberal'. I said

I thought editorial pages, except locally supporting 'W',

were pretty balanced. He said it wasn't the editorial

page he objected to - it was the news reporting. How

I asked could 'news reporting' be one way or the other.

Did my neighbor object to what was happening in the

world? How could that be 'liberal' or 'conservative'?

Now I understand from those reporters of the NYT who

echo uncritcally the administration line in their

reporting, how that can be. However, I wouldn't call

it liberal or conservative, but rather true or false.

It was good to learn that Mr. Greenwald has the same

regard for Ms. Borger's pronouncements that I do after

cancelling my US & World Report subscription. For a

while I thought Borger was only decent journalist of

the crew; unfortunatly she's not. After Rove's

manipulation of Texas' Bush performance and his

use of phony issues to get "W" in White House and now

this phony issue of Sen. Clinton being most vulnerable

is way out of the orbit for a main stream Democrat.

Mr. Greenwald has never disappointed me.

I would like to know other Feinstein- type Democrats

in the Senate.

Thank you so much for posting this story. I have

e-mailed it to friends who have felt W and/or

Chaney might be tempted to carry out this threat.

At JFK airport store, New Years 200l, I bought a recent

Tom Friedman book to read on my way back to New Mexico.

I thought a lot of Mr. Friedman's analysis then.

But after the Iraq war began, my husband hearing Mr.

Friedman on a talk show, asked who is that, said after

I told him, said "he's an idiot". Mr. Friedman said somewhat

recently that he'd changed his mind about the war being

so good and come around to his wife's way of thinking.

As Mr. Greenwald has pointed out, he's really not changed

the point of his rhetoric. Thank you Mr. Greenwald.

I watched Meet Press last Sunday. I was shocked by

Maureen Dowd as someone legitimate attacking Sen. Clinton.

as Mr. Russert suggested. I will never read Ms. Dowd

again from my NYT on-line. Your characterization of her

in your piece this a.m. is accurate.

I was ashamed of Tim Russert. I didn't watch Meet the

Press when Bill Richarson was on, but my husband said

Russert did somewhat the same thing and Gov. Richardson

was not ready for it. But Senator Clinton was! Thank

Goodness she is so intelligent and knows history! Maybe

it was the better educated women who put Sen. Clinton

over the top, but it was also the working blue collar

workers in New Hampshire who always intended to vote

for Clinton long before the empty rhetoric of Sen.

Obama - which, however, is inspiring, but deeds

count more than speech.

I worked for Senator Kerry's election in New Mexico;

I called many households to speak to the person

registered as Democrat, mostly, it was a woman in

a divided household. Often, if the husband answered

he refused to let me speak to his wife. I am also

ashamed of Senatory Kerry's endorcement of Sen.

Obama. The only thing that is good about it

for me is I no longer have to feel pain when I pass

his old headquarters. If there is a preceived

"Bradley effect" it has benefitted Sen. Obama.

What little contribution I could make went to

Sen. Edwards, but that support for Ewards was

not to say I was against Sen. Clinton. I will

be sending her campaign a small contribution and

a message to press on.

;

The voters for Sen. Clinton will be those working and

retired women, young and old, who want the most experienced

and tough person as president.

I have gotten worried over past months

that Obama mania is invading all my

sources of news and thought. But I see

Walsh and Salon are still fair.

After Sen. Byrd of W.V. announced his

support for Obama, I learned Obama had

contributed over $10,000 to Byrd's Senate

campaign. It made me wonder if this is why

Sen. Dodd supports Obama because his campaign

debts were paid by a contribution of Obama

money. There may be others, but today's

announcement by my Gov. Richardson of N.M.

raises the same question. If Clinton money

were used in this way, there would be an

uproar that she was buying Super Delegates.