Letters to the Editor
Baldie McEagle
Published Letters: 992 Editor's Choice: 3
-
How it works
[Read the article: Charles Krauthammer on the evils of associating with terrorists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dr Bosch spelled it out clearly enough: To graduate from Terrorist to Patriot, you need to claim the right of belligerence. Just like W did.
Ayers didn't do that. One might wonder why. Was it because he doesn't truly believe in his evil anti-American cause? Was it because he is a madman, who doesn't believe in following the rules, or believe in rules at all?
Obama may not have a ready explanation, though he has proved himself to be quite facile with words. But it's about time he spoke to the American people and explained why, when Ayers himself doesn't seem to believe his own actions were pure and patriotic, Obama still stands by him.
-
Gosh, Scoot
[Read the article: Charles Krauthammer on the evils of associating with terrorists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]TWO WRONGS ... not making a right, is the usual response by someone who doesn't want to explain the first wrong.
If you're going to bash Krauthammer for supporting bombing you're going to have to condemn Ayers for actually doing it.
We thought that was self-evident. But we do have Republican guests here, so yes, perhaps Glenn should spell it out for all of you:
Bombing noncombatants is bad.
-
Analysis of kufir's comments
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think many of the troll tactics we see here may mimic similar behavior in the media at large, so they interest me.
My best guess is that kufir is trying to disrupt the discussion with a very simple tactic, by pushing an extremely bilateral frame on us (Jews/Americans vs Jew haters/traitors/etc.). He's not demanding we follow it, but he knows that by shouting it loudly, the discussion will show an increased tendency to fall in line with it. Think of it as an experiment with sound waves or traffic patterns. By arguing with him, we risk strengthening the duality that tends to support his point of view and conclusions.
Therefore, I'd conclude that the most effective responses would carefully disrupt the bilateral assumptions: by exposing them, by mocking them, and by refuting them. Not by contradicting or denying or arguing. Just a thought.
Points to those who exposed the American-Jew link in kufir's assumptions.
I myself noticed his unstated assertion that we need to know Bush personally to question his statements. This is a very interesting theory of presidential integrity.
-
@prunes
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, Israel certainly does seem to need the US's money.
-
Well put
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I just don't get why Syria was so damn quiet about this when it happened. You'd think they'd be screaming about it, yet they hardly said a word.
That is a good question. But perhaps these numbers might shed some light: 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973.....
Sometimes the most obvious explanations for the behavior of states are least visible. Dictatorships such as Syria may behave especially like clever forest animals---almost as though they are interested in their own personal survival.
-
Talking points
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The talking points are merely the particle in the wave, so to speak. But the function of the RW blogs is to provide them.
It may have been noticed that I like to respond with total absurdity on occasion. I can't believe that's gratifying for them.
-
kufir
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You may recall that for a while, Syria and Egypt were supposedly the same united country. It was a fiction, of course. But I'd bet they were paying close attention to each other's wars with Israel.
I guess that's not important though. It's just a fact, after all.
-
@cestmoi
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Also, don't you think that the Syrians would have said exactly what the site was, if it wasn't nuclear?
Why?
-
@Electra
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And if you shoot back then you're a war criminal.
Speak for yourself.
-
It's true---I've seen the video
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Foreign nations are apparently cooperating with one another to achieve shared aims. What's worse, they are probably exchanging money for information or services and achieving mutual benefit.
This is a dangerous trend. Cooperation is known to be an effective strategy for getting things done. It seems clear that the use of military force is a viable solution to this threat. We cannot take it "off the table," as some politicians say they would like to do.
Clinton and McCain are right. If Iran shows any sign of cooperating with Iraq, which is supposed to be an ally of the United States, we must obliterate them. Only then can we be safe.
-
I'd like to draw attention for a moment
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]to kufir's gratuitous male-bathroom-sex reference:
Unlike you, on the other hand. You're a TOETAPPER, in more ways than one.
Rhetorically, this is uninteresting; psychologically, it's a different story.
-
I read the Clinton remark differently
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Of course it was stupid, but she clearly was just posing for the cameras. Note she referred specifically to deterrent, not preemptive, obliteration.
-
A funny thing
[Read the article: Skepticism toward Bush claims about Syria and North Korea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Timberman, it is you government worshipers that think humans are evil --- you think we need a nanny state to whip us.
I'm not defending WT (I don't think he needs my defense), but I always find it very strange when people profess to hate or oppose "government." Who spoke out in favor of either nannies or whipping? (If anything, I'd like to whip a nanny, but that's OT.)
In a democracy (yeah, I know), government works for the citizens. It does what the citizens can't do, or it does it better, or more efficiently, or more cheaply.
Why would you dedicate your life to bitching about people who work for you, or about funding their efforts to do your bidding? Why not just work toward better oversight?
The only problem is when governments cease to do the citizens' bidding. But this is not a unique or even interesting problem. And it won't be solved by bitching and posing.