Letters to the Editor
Baldie McEagle
Published Letters: 992 Editor's Choice: 3
-
I'd like a buttered carrot, please
[Read the article: What backroom conniving are Steny Hoyer and the Chris Carney Blue Dogs up to on FISA?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I know me some holes need fillin'.
I'd be interested in further analysis of why this work is being done, to some degree, in secret, almost as though they know they are committing crimes. Of course no one wants to be seen as being in the pocket of the telecoms, but what's the public justification?
Carney seems to be open about it, but not Hoyer.
Is he a Blue Dog? (Yellow Dog? Anyone?)
Were a few more large campaign contributions made?
-
Two possible causes
[Read the article: What backroom conniving are Steny Hoyer and the Chris Carney Blue Dogs up to on FISA?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here](1)Here's a wild and crazy idea, total conspiracy theory, so put your tinfoil hats on. Could it be, oh, that some of these Dems have something to hide, and to fear if these lawsuits are allowed to proceed--especially the discovery process, which might reveal the nature and extent of the crimes perpetuated against the American people during the Bush years, which some of them were directly complicit in allowing to happen, and perhaps might even have actively endorsed?
I don't think that's conspiracy theory. I think it's obvious that some Dems (Intelligence Committee?) did have a role in letting the constitutional violations happen. These senior Dems talked to the Dem leadership, who promise to protect them, because a stain on them will become a stain on the party and thus the party leadership. Non-culpable Dems are then spoken to and become quiet or agreeable. Cynics like Hoyer don't need much convincing.
(2) Let's say you have a choice between (a) doing the right thing and taking heat, and (b) accepting financial support from the telecoms. Which will ensure your seat?
My guess is, first A, then B. So is this perfectly logical behavior?
-
This is how the world ends
[Read the article: The economic "stimulus" bonanza needs a new name]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A few more years like this one, and we'll be paying zero income taxes (just government usage fees) and starving and collecting rags to sell (like Russian women in the 1980s). And Dickens will be suddenly very familiar.
-
What we need, then
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt on the noble glories of occupation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is a global surge. It's all clear now.
-
Someone mention credibility?
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt on the noble glories of occupation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm 1 billion percent with you.
-
translation
[Read the article: The media, the right and 1988: Endless deja vu]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]by introducing such memorably biting characterizations into the political dialogue,
i.e.,
"by using our positions to parrot Karl Rove's patented smears,"
-
@JNagarya
[Read the article: The media, the right and 1988: Endless deja vu]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you for so vigorously and intelligently supporting the concept of government in these pages.
-
Education and expertise are now officially scorn-worthy handicaps.
[Read the article: The media, the right and 1988: Endless deja vu]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You mean, that's true for both parties now.
Just Wednesday, The Daily Show showed John Duncan (R-Tenn) dismissing the "rather elitist" opinion of "people who have degrees in the field" of sex education who "think they know better than the parents."
The real question is, when did "elitist" become a synonym of "educated and/or trained"?
Know-nothingism is back, it seems.
-
@Mona
[Read the article: The media, the right and 1988: Endless deja vu]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I haven't read the whole debate here about drugs, and I won't. I was specifically thanking JN for defending the concept of government (from Bucky, especially). Nothing else.
Although frankly, I think libertarianism is bullshit as practiced. Not that it's wrong all the time.
I live in a state where alcohol is highly regulated (you can't import it) and I see meth addicts on the street. I don't fear violence from either group, nor do I fear drug dealers (they're usually polite). I know the history of the use of fear in this country, and I believe that just about all the substances I can think of should be regulated but never banned. The idea of an illegal "substance" strikes me as absurd.
So, I reject your projected version of my thoughts, beliefs, and opinions.
-
@Bot
[Read the article: The media, the right and 1988: Endless deja vu]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One weak President is much the same as any other. And anyone who imagines this next administration, whoever it is, will be bold and adventurous is just being dense. You already don't want another Clinton, McCain is doddering and Obama is more flash than pan. When was the last inspiring President? Teddy Roosevelt?
Have you given up on even trying to make coherent comments?
-
Sure, he's a "good reporter"
[Read the article: Who needs Dana Perino when you have the NYT's Michael Gordon?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He does bad reporting, that's all.
Besides, the American officials told him they'd have to kill him if they revealed their own sources, and that was good enough for Mr Gordon. He would have made a "good German" too.
-
Air AND naval
[Read the article: Who needs Dana Perino when you have the NYT's Michael Gordon?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I just don't see Iran as anything other than a bombing campaign. The point I was making was in questioning the motives for it.
and surely special forces too. FWIW.
I assume the nuttycons aren't too concerned about being attacked on the flank, because they are confident we can destroy any enemy movement across the border. And they are correct, as far as armor, troop transport, the Iranian air force, anything moving in a column or on a road.
But the folly of this, as always, is the potential for asymmetrical warfare. And all that would require is for Iran to actually do, on a massively larger scale, exactly what it is accused of doing.
That, and the fact that Iraqis and Iranians will happily work together if forced, especially if they are coreligionists. And an attack on Iran would achieve exactly that.
I assume that what the US would hope to achieve is a quick official "surrender" by Tehran, a yielding on nuclear power and nuclear research, and a murky situation in which the US controls the Gulf and stops all Iranian (oil) shipping indefinitely.
-
@Jan
[Read the article: Who needs Dana Perino when you have the NYT's Michael Gordon?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah, genuine peace is simple - all it requires is that the Israeli Jews commit suicide.
Have you and David Sugarman met?
-
Oh scoot
[Read the article: Who needs Dana Perino when you have the NYT's Michael Gordon?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]according to American interrogation reports that the United States has supplied to the Iraqi government.
Are you really so foolish that you believe the US holds itself to a higher standard of truth when "supplying" information to Iraq than when it "supplies" information to the American public?
Whether you reply with a "yes" or a "no," your argument's credibility is destroyed.
-
Sorry, Jan R
[Read the article: Who needs Dana Perino when you have the NYT's Michael Gordon?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We've all been misread here at one time or another. But see, "suicide" is not just a loaded term. It's a bona fide pity-poor-Israel buzzword.
Use it with caution.
-
Practical? Maybe not
[Read the article: Who needs Dana Perino when you have the NYT's Michael Gordon?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]allow for the return of the refugees and compensate them for their dispossession. It also means granting equal rights to the Palestinian citizens of Israel.
But hardly suicide.