Letters to the Editor
-
The problem with jackasses like Sick Simple Moronic
They create a boogie man, and then attack the boogie man, and say that if the democrats had their way, we would be killed by boogie man ideology. In this most recent post, Sick Simple Moronic (who calls herself sic simper morannis – whatever that is) states:
"Think of the screwy, perverse logic of this decision: terrorists at the behest of a a foreign entity may attack us if they like so long as they do all their planning and training on our own soil."
Nobody has made anything like the absurd assertion stated above. But that is the boogie man. Sick Simple Moronic, and people of his ilk, do this all the time. Just listen to Bush speeches: He will allude to what “some say” and then make something up that no responsible person is asserting but is outrageous on its face, and then disagree with it, suggesting that the “some” who are saying the outrageous thing are democrats. And he gets away with it. Because we are in a state of silent bewilderment at the stupidity of the speaker. And jackasses like Sick Simple Moronic repeat the tactic ad nauseam, everywhere they can log on.
-
A U.S. down the drain would be a terrible loss
I wonder, with all the failings of the G.W.Bush administration, what are you guys going to do about it? It seems like that every time W. and his cronies are caught at the cookie jar, they just laugh things off like they were some kind of an inside joke and move to the next jar. And nothing happens. Incredible.
How did things come to this? In retrospect, what Nixon did was more or less peanuts in comparison to what is happening today. And he was forced to resign. Clinton was hounded down like a criminal, because he had himself a few illicit blowjobs. Well, actually because he lied about it, but in this instance it amounts to the same thing. Carter got whipped in the elections because he had the bad fortune of being president during the Persian revolution.
How come that you are letting Gonzales' et.al. roam free? How come that you convict patsies like Scooter Libby while missing the actual point entirely? Do you realize that you have a series of Watergates (and worse) on your hands? Have you forgotten that you are supposed to be a nation ruled by laws, not by the tempers of a cabal run by a despot?
For the grace and glory of the U.S.A I do wish that you change course. Things are not yet beyond repair, but unless you start change course pretty damn quickly they will eventually be. I work for an American company, and I do like you guys on a personal level. Americans typically posess an optimism that we lack in Europe, and that's something I'd like to see more of. But this current trend of unaccountability and falseness is unacceptable. And I think many of you here agree with me on this.
So, what are you going to do?
-
just my luck
to have my expose of Blumenthal's source followed up by an idiot Republican troll with "suicide pact" talking points straight from Fox News.
"And for the support of this Declaration...we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Recognize those words? As Barbara Ehrenreich has noted, the Declaration of Independence was actually a pact sealed by the lives of its signers, who were taking an enormous risk with their lives.
This is underscored by the popular (but largely erroneous) email forward "The Price they Paid".
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/pricepaid.asp
Of course, that won't stop the modern equivalent of cowardly Tory collaborators from repeating ad nauseum one judge's catchy truism about the Constitution.
But who cares what a bunch of dead enders think? It's nice to be in the company of the 74% of Americans who reject Bush's failed tyranny.
-
of course your don't quote my entire point
Nobody has made anything like the absurd assertion stated above. But that is the boogie man. ...
-- GuestofGuest
You don't quote me completely, so your point is just stupid and invalid.
And you obviously haven't read the 4th Circuit's decision, because what I paraphrased is exactly their case. That's why it's weak and pathetic, contrary to Supreme Court precedent, and sure to be overturned.
I want to see Sidney "Bleating Sheep" Blumenthal's Salon article when that happens. Oh, wait, that'll never happen. Blumenthal has been wrong so many times, his entire life would have to consist of nothing but correcting the record.
-
There it goes! Ha ha!
"Remember, folks, the Constitution is not a suicide pact." - Sic Simple Moronic
What did I say say again?
Exactly.
-
I love it when libs expose their ignorance.
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact." Justice Robert H. Jackson, Terminiello v. Chicago
Consider this, also, from a hero of the Left, then see if you can guess who said it:
"A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."
-
Fighting to defend us...
...from strawmen, one keystroke at a time.
-
@GuestofGuest
Would that their adherents wore brown shirts, so we could at least easily identify who they are.
Damn straight. Aren't lawful combatants supposed to wear uniforms?
-
A Few Words of Advice
Sidney. Mr Blumenthal. Sir: your contributions to "Salon" always exhibit two major and insurmountable flaws: first, you ALWAYS overstate your case; and second, you ALWAYS base that case on hearsay, innuendo, and off-the-record remarks. My favorite example, until this present offering, was your absurd claim that the Nov elections were proof of the imminent arrival of what you called “Generation Dem.” Instead of suggesting that maybe there were some grounds for cautious optimism, you went over the top and declared the Second Coming of the New Deal! And, as for sources: well, you apparently don’t accept anything unless it’s said by “insiders” (because that shows you're an “insider” too?). But, like all insiders what they have to say is not for attribution, ‘cos they still want to remain Insiders. This doesn't help your case … or your readers.
This current offering is no different. Highly placed sources, close to the Very Seat of Power Itself, have revealed privately to you what they allegedly cannot ‘fess up to in public: that their illegal use of torture, rendition, wire-taps, etc etc is not simply illegal but (horror of horrors) is not really working! Given this idiotic tidbit of "information", you then leap to an absurd conclusion: the Imperial Presidency is “null and void”! And yet, as others have pointed out, and as the article itself makes abundantly clear … NOTHING’S CHANGED! Not only that: It’s Business As Usual in a Bullish Market!!
In several instances in this article, you provide information that runs DIRECTLY counter to your absurdly over-stated conclusion. To cite but a few examples:
(1) Karen Hughes, the so-called “undersecretary of state for public diplomacy,” (i.e. propaganda) opts to improve “the U.S. image in the world” by opening a Counterterrorism Communications Center “staffed by military and intelligence officers, to rebut the false claims of terrorists.”
(2) You openly admit that Gen. Petraeus’ public statement against torture last May “HAD NO EFFECT on the elaborate system of "enhanced interrogation techniques," black site prisons, maintenance of Guantánamo, or the 20,000 Iraqi prisoners incarcerated on U.S. military bases without due process. Petraeus has no more influence over the president who says he listens to his military commanders than the commanders who have opposed the policy since its inception.” (Petraeus’ position is erroneously characterized by you as a “moral” case against torture. In fact, if you read the quote provided in your article, the General mentions only “the basic fact that such actions are illegal,” and adds that “history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary." These are arguments from expediency, not morality. )
(3) Though we are told the Supreme Court ruled against Bush in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, you then reveal that Bush “promptly got the Republican-led Congress to legislate approval of the illegal [military] commissions [for detainees] as well as suspend habeas corpus.”
I could go on … and on … and on … … …
But the point is surely clear Sidney: though a good writer and undoubtedly a good person (anyone who sees through Bush has to be basically decent), you are at present a poor source of argument or information. To improve, you absolutely MUST avoid your innate temptation to take the word of “insiders” and to quote them as unimpeachable sources. (If they are criminals in public what difference does it make what they say in private?) Second: you ABSOLUTELY MUST contain your irrational zeal for Grand Pronouncements. Analyze the evidence Sidney and remain within the parameters it provides. Connect the dots, and arrive at the Conclusion warranted by the information you cite. Anything else is Cloud Cuckoo Land. You may WISH (as do we all, fervently) that the Imperial Presidency was truly “null and void,” but to declare it as FACT requires EVIDENCE. You do not provide that evidence. I strongly urge you to get a copy-editor who is capable of tying your excellent writing skills to some basic rules of logic. It’s a line of work I do myself. If you’re interested in producing better work, contact me!
(Seriously. And, Sincerely)