Letters to the Editor
therealcervantes
Published Letters: 18
-
Credit where it's due . . .
[Read the article: Anatomy of Beltway conventional wisdom]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's a fine post, but you know you are channeling Bob Somerby, right down to the style and some of his favorite catch phrases. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but you should give him a tip o' the hat for saying these things -- or rather howling them -- every day for the past few years.
-
Sure Mr. G . . .
[Read the article: Anatomy of Beltway conventional wisdom]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wasn't accusing you of plagiarism, just pointing out what appeared to be a very strong influence and commending said influence to your readers. Said influence may be found here:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/
(Cut and paste, since anchor tags aren't accepted.)
-
Why Gonzales won't resign
[Read the article: The attorney general's "tremendous credibility problem"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If he were to resign, the new AG would have to be confirmed by the Senate, which means he could not merely be a partisan apparatchik sworn in advance not to investigate the criminal conspiracy which has been running the country since 2001. Since Karl Rove prefers not to do time in a federal penitentiary, and GW Bush prefers not to be impeached and removed from office, we will not see a new AG until January, 2009.
-
And here's another disgusting tidbit
[Read the article: The Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch frauds]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I remember quite clearly Daniel Schorr on NPR -- in special coverage of the war -- saying that the guy who allegedly tipped off the U.S. to Lynch's whereabouts, heroically crossing the front lines to bring about her rescue -- should be made the Prime Minister of Iraq.
That was Schorr's interpretation of the "freedom" we were bringing to the Iraqis.
-
"No underlying crime"
[Read the article: Joe Klein's stirring defense of Lewis Libby]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To me, what is most enraging about the conventional beltway pundit wisdom on this is that there was no actual "underlying" crime committed in the first place. Fitzgerald was a runaway prosecutor who just needed to find something, anything, to charge somebody with, since it turned out that nobody had committed any crime in the first place.
This is sort of the converse of the justification for Guantanamo - "terrorists" don't deserve to have lawyers or 4th and 5th amendment protections. Obviously, we don't actually know if they are terrorists, they are simply presumed guilty.
In the Plame case, Fitzgerald decided he couldn't prove a crime because the conspirators lied and obstructed justice, but we must presume that no crime was committed, ergo Libby's lies were inconsequential. In fact it is pretty clear that there was a crime -- Plame was indeed an undercover agent, the administration officials who revealed her employment to reporters must have known that, the leak did harm the national interest, and represented a betrayal of the United States. But they threw up enough smoke that it would be difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt in the face of millions of dollars worth of lawyering.
Regardless of whether the original crime can be proved, the punditocracy ought to be outraged about the betrayal of the national interest. But they find it trivial. It's absolutely baffling.
-
What matters
[Read the article: What "truly motivates" George W. Bush?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have always said, who cares what George W. Bush really believes? Does he really hear God's voice in his head telling him to invade Iraq and torture muslims, does he truly believe he is on a crusade to purge the world of evil? That seems to me equally apalling, repulsive and dangerous as the theory that it's all an act and he is self-consciously a tool of oil company greed and personal lust for power. What's the difference?
Either way we're neck deep in the Big Muddy and we need to turn around and walk back whence we came.
-
I just have one word for you . . .
[Read the article: How much credence should Gen. Petraeus' reports be given?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Westmoreland.
-
There's a problem with this . . .
[Read the article: The Democrats' responsibility in the wake of Gonzales' resignation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If the Dems refuse to confirm Bush's nominee(s), then an acting AG will continue in office, presumably the current solicitor general. So all Chimpy has to do is throw up one unconfirmable sacrificial lamb after another, and he retains control of the DoJ and the prosecutorial apparatus until January 20, 2009.
He doesn't need a new AG at all.
-
Possible rationale?
[Read the article: Are Democrats planning still worse FISA capitulations?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]GG writes, "If Democrats do what the Times article suggests they are prepared to do, i.e. grant retroactive immunity to telecoms, that would compel dismissal of those lawsuits, which in turn would destroy what is perhaps the last chance for ever obtaining a judicial determination as to whether the President broke the law. What possible rationale would lead them even to consider such a thing?"
That's an easy one. The companies in question are politically powerful entities that make campaign contributions and can make even bigger ones if they want to. They can create real problems for their political enemies and give big help to their friends. Remember Who Runs Congress -- it ain't us, it's the lobbyists on K Street. And believe me, AT&T is gonna get whatever it wants.
-
You don't seem to understand American politics on the most basic level
[Read the article: Anonymous Liberal for Glenn Greenwald: The raw politics of telecom immunity]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The golden rule of politics:
He who has the gold, rules.
It's about money -- massive, vast, immense, huge amounts of money, flowing into congressional campaign coffers, funding independent political advertising, supporting party committees at every level. AT&T has immense wealth and power, and they can tip elections if they want to.
Your naivete is astonishing.