Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:
Published Letters: 19
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.