Letters to the Editor
Baldie McEagle
Published Letters: 992 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Look, peewee's a "journalist"!
[Read the article: The ornery pride of the political journalist]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Presumably it did this because McCain invited Bill Keller to share a pot roast and in return Keller agreed to break a stinker of a story so that it could be debunked and McCain would benefit from a net gain.
What a scoop!
-
But that implies we're dealing with journalists
[Read the article: The "Rezko" game]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One very simple and self-evidently warranted rule ought to be applied: no reporter should toss around "Rezko" innuendo unless they're able to explain what it means specifically when assessing Obama's conduct, what specific allegations of any substance are being made against Obama when the scary specter of "Rezko" is invoked. If they're incapable of articulating even those basics -- and they are -- then the whole exercise is just deceitful and worthless.
As ProWar informed us yesterday, such rules do not apply to journalists/reporters, because such people are no different from janitors, delivery boys, and other employees of the media.
I find it hard to imagine having a reporter working for me who couldn't explain the piece he had just submitted. How do these editors allow it? Is it so hard to spot "smoke"?
It's certainly easy to blow it.
-
All this is is the Cold War all over again
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt's foreign policy "principles"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It almost made sense back when we faced a near-superpower with whom we could not engage in a shooting war. Because of that, we had to play chess with the Soviets. Or at least we thought we did.
But how do you play chess when your opponent never comes to the board, and doesn't have any pieces? Apparently, by changing the rules and playing checkers instead. That way, we can acquire as many kings as we want. Especially if we play it solitaire.
And that's how you know the whole game is a sham.
-
Anybody remember 1992
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt's foreign policy "principles"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and the violation of a certain nation's territory by another certain nation and the reaction of yet another nation?
No, it wasn't about "blood for oil" at all.
-
Exactly
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt's foreign policy "principles"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First of all, there is such a thing as getting permission to enter a country to attack guerrillas. We've all done it. It's basic diplomacy, even if it involves intimidation.
Second, what's up with this?
The right to invade is there for all countries - the question is always whether it's a good idea to invade.
That's the only question you can think of?
I guess, then, I have a right to come over to your house and kill you with your family, as long as I know the sheriff and I can get out of the county in time. As for why ... Because your dog is yappy! I have the right!
-
I don't know why you guys are ganging up on bibbles
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt's foreign policy "principles"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Chavez is just another Bush with a country 10000 times as small and weak as ours. I too had hopes for him, and that didn't end when he called Bush the Devil.
But he is clearly the man on horseback, as bibbles says, in the most technical sense. As well as a child in a sandbox who can't play with others.
I hope the people of Venezuela do indeed figure out what to do with him.
-
Chavez
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt's foreign policy "principles"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Chavez is definitely not another Bush. One is a populist progressive the other is a... well, you know what he is.
Both have an authoritarian streak. What politiical leaders don't?
One has 70% approval, the other 19%. You can guess which is which.
Fair enough---I was just speaking generally anyway. If Bush and Chavez had been born in each other's countries before becoming president, I don't think things would change all that much. Perhaps the approval ratings would flip, and of course they would belong to opposite parties. But what else of any substance? Wouldn't we merely be exchanging illegal domestic spying for the illegal closing of media outlets?
In short, yes, I'm pointing to the authoritarian "streak." In both of them, it's a "streak" like the Mississippi is a dried-up creek.
And to answer the question---there have been plenty. Look at Germany, and the rest of Europe. Look anywhere the people manage to restrain their rulers.
Authoritarianism is not to be excused in anyone. I think bibbles agrees. Chavez will not leave much in his wake but bad feelings.
-
You're deliberately missing my point
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt's foreign policy "principles"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The discussion was about authoritarianism and saber-rattling. Not about respective daddies. So try not to insult me as though I've never picked up a newspaper.
As I said, I fail to see while bibbles isn't allowed to comment that Chavez is an asshole. The advanced age you claim as an excuse doesn't put you in charge of comments here.
-
Thanks LWM, but as I said
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt's foreign policy "principles"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I also was willing to think well of Chavez, long after 2005. Not so much any more.
-
Meanwhile, out in the world (I won't call it "real")
[Read the article: Shocking new revelation: Unchecked government powers get abused]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Al-Qaida terrorists may be plotting more urgently to attack the United States to maintain their credibility and ability to recruit followers, the U.S. military commander in charge of domestic defense said Thursday.
Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, chief of the U.S. Northern Command, told reporters he has not seen any direct threats tied to the U.S. presidential elections. But he said it would be imprudent to think that such threats are not there.
"We need only to look at Spain and see that they're certainly willing to try to do something that is significant that could affect an election process," Renuart said. "I think it would be imprudent of us to let down our guard believing that if there's no credible threat that you know of today, there won't be something tomorrow."
Renuart went on to speculate that "goblins and ghosties" as well as "child-killers and other bad guys" may prowl the night about a week before the November election. "It would be foolish not to speculate about such activity," he said. "Especially when you consider the implications of a razor blade hidden in an innocent-looking apple. You think, "Can we afford to take a chance?' "
-
I know
[Read the article: Why do conservatives really find the Obama campaign "scary"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He was scared by the video's representation of white people as supportive of a black man's candidacy. Right?
Because let's face it, it's not the specter of black people voting for Obama.
Bill was right to compare Obama to Jackson. He just got the balance of similarities vs differences wrong.