Letters to the Editor
Baldie McEagle
Published Letters: 992 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Did someone mention Jews?
[Read the article: More on Michael Mukasey's false 9/11 and FISA claims]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran."
Guess who!
-
And yet, heffalump
[Read the article: John Yoo: Spearhead or scapegoat?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ward Churchill did formulate a serious argument. One that seems more and more clearly to have been largely correct.
How is that possible, when he was not an Administration torture lawyer? When he was not advocating criminality and war? Is that not the definition of "serious"?
Are arguments for this or that party in an election year ever "serious"? Impossible! All is greed and cynicism. Only the idiot is pure.
If a goldfish leaps from his bowl, he drowns in air.
-
Pathetic ignorance of history
[Read the article: John Yoo: Spearhead or scapegoat?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Heffalump sez:
I wonder what the number of wartime abuses were, among Allied troops, as they marched through Europe in 1941, to defeat those same (ahem) Nazis. Shooting prisoners, extreme interrogations, collateral damage to civilians, etc. Regrettable, but not unexpected in wartime.
Why does he wonder, I wonder? If he needs to make a point, whatever it is, can't he just go find out? Maybe he just doesn't care about the facts, and thinks he can wish them up?
Or were nearly all records of such incidents, outside the executions of SS guards and several "isolated" prisoner shootings, scrubbed from the records before the time of the Nuremburg trials, because such incidents were considered unrepresentative of American practices?
Whether or not one believes that to be the case, Heffalump is still left scooping water from a leaky boat. Because, either way, such incidents were considered unrepresentative of American practices. Not typical, not tolerated, not officially or unofficially sanctioned, not ordered.
Note to Heffalump: This was in the pre-Yoo days, otherwise known as all of American history.
-
You didn't highlight this
[Read the article: McCain-onomics: Cheap gas in every tank]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Not only is more consumption the answer, according to McCain, but short-term thinking will help too. How else to explain shorting the strategic reserve?
-
typo
[Read the article: Is it "contradictory" to decry the right's tactics while insisting on their equal application?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"WAS" raped and killed.
-
This is funny and sad
[Read the article: Is it "contradictory" to decry the right's tactics while insisting on their equal application?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I had the opportunity this week to speak to a gathering of roughly 20 members of Congress and various Democratic Beltway strategist-types about my book and some of these strategic themes, and this same question was raised: "if we engage these themes, aren't we dragging ourselves to the level that they're at, and copying tactics which voters emphatically say they dislike"?
Since when do these people care about what voters want, like, or dislike?
And how did they account for the barbs traded between the Democratic campaigns of Clinton and Obama? What's the taboo against directing those sharp knives against a Republican candidate?
-
PeeWee
[Read the article: Is it "contradictory" to decry the right's tactics while insisting on their equal application?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You haven't been paying attention.
Go to the corner and put on that tall, conical hat you know so well.
-
@AmiBlue
[Read the article: Is it "contradictory" to decry the right's tactics while insisting on their equal application?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Only if you're Hillary Democrat.
-
sorry
[Read the article: Is it "contradictory" to decry the right's tactics while insisting on their equal application?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]_A_ Hillary Democrat.
-
But somebody in the media did
[Read the article: Is it "contradictory" to decry the right's tactics while insisting on their equal application?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But of course nowhere in the column can Will actually be bothered to even ask the question of whether Obama's diagnosis of the bitterness of working-class voters might actually be based in fact.
So Obama says something that constitutes a personal opinion, which may or may not be true, but no one argues its veracity, or lack thereof. No, it's wrong simply because it contradicts a populist narrative about the wisdom of ordinary people.
And it wasn't a journalist, but Jon Stewart. His comment was to the effect that "Obama was wrong. Pennsylvania towns are founded on guns, religion, and antipathy to foreigners/others."
George, meet Jon. He'll be replacing you someday.
-
Aeschylus
[Read the article: Is it "contradictory" to decry the right's tactics while insisting on their equal application?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Personal attacks are the exclusive province of the Right, and the Left is just playing catch-up? Are you high?
Who said that?
-
Stay in your corner, dunce
[Read the article: Is it "contradictory" to decry the right's tactics while insisting on their equal application?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Propaganda is always a short-term solution, especially when it's vile. Cf. "permanent Republican majority."
-
excellent point
[Read the article: Is it "contradictory" to decry the right's tactics while insisting on their equal application?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Remember MoveOn/BetrayUs. The press does not respond in the same way when the left uses the tactics dear to the right. Obama is smart enough to understand this. Are the rest of us?
After several years of Unclaimed Territory, shouldn't we all be clear on the fact that the news media (whether because of corporate ownership or because of sheer "think-tank" funding superiority) are fundamental to the problem? Republicans have been doing the dirtier tricks for a long time now, but they can't be blamed for discovering that the media don't need much coaching when it comes to echoing lies against people who reject the corporate line.
The news media are vulnerable. The news media are disliked by "bitter" as well as educated Americans. Attacking the news media can't be as easily played as attacking a party, where "oh look, the [insert supposedly symmetrically opposed parties here] are at it again" works to diminish the message. And news media are losing money because they are turning off readers/watchers, because they offer only shallow drama.
Start here, with pointing out media lies. It's so easy: Can anyone resist a tag line like "The Truth They Don't Want You to Know"?
Now get to work!
-
He already did
[Read the article: Is it "contradictory" to decry the right's tactics while insisting on their equal application?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Oracle of Lancaster, G. Terry Madonna, took to the airwaves to proclaim that "unless [Obama] figures out a way to explain it in manner that makes more sense..."
Try to find any report of it in the MSM.
-
And this is why it matters
[Read the article: Is it "contradictory" to decry the right's tactics while insisting on their equal application?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Apr 17th, 2008 | WASHINGTON -- Republicans are no longer underdogs in the race for the White House. To pull that off, John McCain has attracted disgruntled GOP voters, independents and even some moderate Democrats who shunned his party last fall.
Partly thanks to an increasingly likable image, the Republican presidential candidate has pulled even with the two Democrats still brawling for their party's nomination, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo news poll released Thursday. Just five months ago — before either party had winnowed its field — the survey showed people preferred sending an unnamed Democrat over a Republican to the White House by 13 percentage points.
In case anyone forgot. Boldface type indicates disbelief.