Letters to the Editor
lawyermom
Published Letters: 33 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Playing for October/November
[Read the article: How Bush is trying to save face in Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm sure that the parents, siblings, spouses, children and friends of the soldiers who will die over the next 16 months will be comforted by the fact that their loved ones died to save Bush having to admit to the failure of his Iraq policy.
-
If clandestine regime change
[Read the article: Those were the days]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is so terrific, why the hell didn't we do it in Iraq?
We didn't because we wanted to show the Ay-rabs how big and bad we are. That worked out well.
-
Iran
[Read the article: Why Bush won't attack Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bush had weak intelligence on Iraq, and that didn't stop him from invading Iraq. Bush had people telling him that there could be potentially serious, if not disastrous, consequences of an invasion, and that wouldn't stop him. Bush had his Secretary of State trying to slow down, if not stop, the march to war. That didn't stop Bush from invading Iraq.
It is reported that someone on Cheney's staff said that the Vice-President might do an "end-run" around Bush by conducting his own foreign policy -- "hopefully" getting Israel to provoke an attack on US forces -- and the OVP effectively concedes that the statement was made, Bush doesn't insist that the guy be fired, and there is no public or Congressional outcry. Everyone just accepts the possibility that Dick Cheney might actually lead a coup d'etat against Bush (or at least his role as The Decider), and everyone just says, "Gee, hope that doesn't happen, but not to worry, BUSH doesn't want to invade Iran."
Sorry. I'm still worried.
-
Oh.My.God
[Read the article: Bill O'Reilly explains the African-American]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just when I was recovering from the shock of learning that the WH had said that Barack Obama was too "intellectually lazy" to be president....
-
Not this s**t again
[Read the article: The remaining GOP base -- the 30%'ers and the Broder/Ignatius pundit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I guess Ignatius has forgotton about all the assurances Bush made to the American people about how he hasn't decided whether to invade Iraq, and how he was hoping to avoid war with Iraq through diplomacy, even as Bush was telling the British and Spanish prime ministers that we'd be in Baghdad by the end of March, 2003.
Why would a little thing like that make him skeptical of what a senior Administration official told him?
As for Broder, senile dementia is the only possible explanation for his inistence that the the reason why the public disapproves of Congress is because it passes legislation that the President has said he will veto. If the public wanted Congress to pass bill that Bush liked, they would have returned a Republican majority to both Houses.
The public disapproves of Congress because it is TOO acquiescent to Bush's demands, not because it isn't acquiescent enough.
-
Original FISA
[Read the article: What FISA capitulations are Democrats planning next?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is it really true that the original FISA bill permitted warrantless surveillance where the U.S. end of the call was not him/herself the "target" of the surveillance? What happened if the surveillance revealed that the U.S. person was just someone the foreign person just "happened" to call? Wouldn't that U.S. person then become a target? And would someone then get a warrant to continue surveillance of that U.S. person's subsequent communications with the foreign person? I would think that the FISA bill required such a warrant, even if the foreign person was still the "primary" target. So I think that new FISA bill waters down that protection, particularly since, as I read it, the foreign person doesn't even need to be the "primary" target.
-
He Who Must Not Be Questioned
[Read the article: A nation of Rich Lowrys]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Shorter Petraeus: "We are winning the war in Midasia. We have always been winning the war in Midasia."
-
Fredo, I Knew It Was You
[Read the article: Gonzales' lawyer, Gonzales' worry]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"We have been engaged to assist Judge Gonzales in his continued effort to provide assistance to the Department of Justice as it examines the Department's role in various programs and operations to combat the terrorist threat," Terwilliger said.
Ah, Terwilliger is helping Abu G to remember the facts necessary to assist the DoJ as it examines the DoJ's own role in protecting America against terrorists.
But who will help Mr. Terwilliger remember the facts necessary to assist Abu G remember enough facts to assist the DoJ in remembering what the DoJ did to protect America from terrorists.
-
The critical distinction
[Read the article: He's with the generals, generally]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]for Lindsey Graham is that General Petraeus is STILL in uniform, and General Sanchez is not. Therefore, Sanchez is responsible for all of his own mistakes (mistakes that Graham refused to recognize at the time they were occurring), but Petraeus is not responsible for his mistakes, which are still occurring. Because why correct a mistake while it's happening?
-
Not quite sure if I will support him in the primaries
[Read the article: Dodd's emphasis on constitutional and rule of law issues]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]but today I sent his campaign $100 and called his Senate office to express my gratitude and respect for his actions.
Dodd gave me hope today.
-
I'll be praying too
[Read the article: And then he's going to take a little nap]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]for the next president of the United States to keep prayer between him/herself and God, and focus instead on the Constitution of the United States.
-
Iran
[Read the article: Chris Floyd for Glenn Greenwald: The Democrats' year of living disastrously]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't think it's unreasonable suspect that Iran may be trying to attain the ability to produce nuclear weapons. It would be unreasonable to assume that Iran ISN'T trying to make nuclear weapons just because Dubya and The Dick seem obsessed with Iran.
It does not follow, however, from this perfectly reasonable suspicion that we ought to start dropping bombs all over the country, as we'd have to do since we have no idea where, if anywhere, Iran is actually building said possible bombs. First, we should remember that we have acquiesced to the possession of nuclear weaponry by Pakistan -- just labeled by Newsweek as the world's most dangerous nation -- even though it is harboring the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 and even though it remains locked in a generations-long rivalry with the also-nuclear India.
Second, even if it really was necessary to take military action against Iran, why would anyone want the two biggest military fuck-ups in American history to be the ones calling the shots?