Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
His lawsuit will attempt to show that CBS tried to suppress the report on Bush's National Guard Service and the Abu Ghraib abuses.
The letters thread is now closed.
  • Insane asylum

    Modeler:

    "Which insane asylum did you get out of, or should you still be in one , sort of we train to kill and kill we will?"

    Maybe it was the same one your communist friends in the old Soviet Union sent truth-tellers to.

  • Pantanal is lying

    "Groenhagen, another right wing nut lying about his 'military' service.

    "I found out from USMC headquarters that NO person by that name ever served in the Marines Corp. Vermin Groenhagen- Another Creationist Bushevik moronic asshole playing with guns and lying about his non-existing service."

    At least two people named Groenhagen have served in the U.S. Marine Corps. One is dead.

    ut thank you for confirming my contention that moonbats such as you care little about military service. You'll even attack a man as honorable as Gen. Petraeus if you think it will further your treasonous objectives.

  • "treasonous objectives"?

    How's thate Senior Monthly going?

  • Oh, Grima, Grima, Grima did you just seriously post that?

    Courtesy the war room via of Think Progress

    Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV):

    “‘Look at the movie Wag the Dog. I think this has all the elements of that movie,’ Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said. ‘Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems.’” [Ottawa Citizen, 8/21/98]

    Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA):

    “There’s an obvious issue which will be raised internationally about the response here as to whether there is any diversionary motive involved. … I have deliberated consciously any references to Ms. Monica Lewinsky, but when you ask the question in very blunt terms, the president’s current problems have to be on the minds of many people.” [CNN, 8/20/98]

    Former Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO):

    “‘We support the president out of a sense of duty whenever he deploys military forces, but we’re not sure - were these forces sent at this time because he needed to divert our attention from his personal problems?‘ Ashcroft said during the taping of a TV program in Manchester, N.H.” [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 8/21/98]

    Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX):

    “I’m very supportive of the strike that has happened, but I will tell you that the timing is very questionable. This was the day that Monica Lewinsky has gone back to the grand jury, evidently enraged. Certainly that information will be overshadowed.” [Dallas Morning News, 8/21/98]

    Former Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN):

    “Coats (R-IN), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, ‘While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack and why it was ordered today, given the president’s personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action.‘” [CNN, 8/20/98]

    Former Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL):

    “Although most in Congress rallied around Clinton on Thursday, two Republican U.S. senators and one Central Florida congressman broke with the tradition of standing behind a president during a foreign crisis.Sen. Daniel Coats, R-Ind., Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Palm Bay, publicly questioned Clinton’s motives in launching the attacks so soon after his public admission of a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. … ‘The president has, indeed, broken the trust of the American people, and these are legitimate questions that must be answered.’” [Orlando Sentinel, 8/21/98]

    Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA):

    “All I’m saying is if factors other than good intelligence, military necessity, being prepared for the consequences entered into it, then it is wrong, and it appears that one of those factors that may have entered into it is to take something that could have been done a week ago and do it today in an effort to divert some attention.” [Fox News, 8/20/98]

    Yeah, Grima, sure we believe you.

    Want to get caught out in more lies?

  • Bush was preparing to have an offensive posture

    paulpsd7:

    "Okay, let me get this straight. After the Cole bombing, Clinton should have known we were at war and acted accordingly.

    "However, after both the Cole bombing and the August 6 PDB, Bush had no reason to put the country on any sort of defensive posture."

    Read the 9/11 Commission report. The Bush admiistration was in the process of implementing a rollback strategy against al Qaeda when 9/11 occurred. This was an OFFENSIVE posture, which we did not have during the Clinton administration.

    The record shows that the Clinton administration consider Iraq a greater threat than al Qaeda.

  • The last BIG CROOK

    Who remembers this seminal moment?

    Nixon, “Are you running for President?”

    Rather, “No sir, are you?”

    I remember seeing that one live… and I let slip a “whoa…”

    Dan’s name has been on the list since then.

    It took a ling time… they had their little staged revolution… and finally got him.

    However… judging by the rather shrill hysteria by some of the posters here… clearly the winds have shifted.

    I think Blumenthal is on to something here. This is a case that can go places where no investigation has gone before. Documents/Schmocumets… discovery is hell.

  • Poor Groggy

    You sure do like calling people liars don't you.

    Mark Twain must have been predicting you.

    It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.

    What's with your sudden appearance here? Did Limbaugh cut you off on calling in and slavishly agreeing with him?

    You can't type without saying "ClintonClintonClinton" can you? Even if I were to grant that Clinton was a "draft dodger", he did use a legitimate procedure to avoid the draft, that still doesn't equate to Bush going AWOL and deserting.

    You've made many incorrect statements since you replied to me. I'm not saying you're lying, I'm saying you're an idiot. You have no idea what you're talking about and insist on showing that to the world. Once you accept they lied to you and you foolishly believed them, you'll be able to look at the world again without seeing Bill's face everywhere. I understand, it is the only defense you have left.

    Bush is so blatantly wrong and horrible all you can do is yell "Look over there!" That's not the answer. You have to face reality or you'll spend the rest of your life trying to blame others. Accept you made a mistake and you can correct it, insist it was someone else's fault and you'll just continue to compound it.