Letters to the Editor
-
Yet more proof against the "liberal media" myth
By rights, this should be an MSM script by now, like the ones that sunk Gore in 2000. I mean, deliberately aggrandizing oneself in the face of a national tragedy, using it so brazenly for personal ambition - wouldn't the average person revile such behavior, which is so obvious, so undeniable? And yet Giuliani continues to be a front-runner. Maybe if enough of us take Biden's lead, keep repeating his quip, add a few like it, maybe that could grow into something like a script . . .
Ah, who am I kidding. It has too much truth to take hold.
-
Rudy's Heroism
Rudy seemed like a hero on 9/11 because he was the only leader of any stripe in evidence. Bush was completely AWOL that day, circling Kansas or something. Congressmen ran to their bunker then crawled back out when it was safe and sang God Bless America. The only national figures I remember from that day are Giuliani and Peter Jennings.
What is it they say about 90% of being successful in life is just showing up?
-
come on ondelette they were high fiving and flicking their bics before anyone else knew it was a terrorist attack
Like the white house that called off the FBI investigation of the Mossad spies, I'm not sure you are interested in the facts or in discovering the truth. But if others are interested in learning of Israel's complicity in the most treacheous act by a foreign power (Apartheid Israel) against the United States since Pearl Harbor check out CARL CAMERON news report. Google Carl Cameron,Mossad spies, 9/11.
-
I always worry about
folks who seem to obsess over particular events to the exclusion of others. When the obsession centers on a particular ethnic or religious group, my tendency to dismess spikes even higher. Jews, Muslims and Mexicans are currently groups of people who are frequently targeted but the nature of the disease is the same no matter the target.
I guess this is my roundabout way of suggesting that liberal white-boy, goldenboy and Lou Dobbs should all go find a sandbox to play in somewhere where they can fight it out among themselves.
-
@zack re nuclear power
zack,
Reading your comment, I couldn't believe that even Rudy could be that stupid. Surely this was just an error by the transcription set. So I did a little Googling and found many times where Rudy said variations of "We can't allow Iran to become a nuclear power" and was even more sure it was an error. Then, there it was, the quote on CNN.com from a CNN sponsored debate in New Hampshire in June. Then, before rushing to post the link, I looked again, and yes, there it was, one more of those little linky-things Glenn puts in his posts. Geez, I've got to do a better job of reading all the links Glenn gives because such interesting things can be found there.
I went ahead and found the full transcript on CNN.com: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/05/se.01.html
It is very clear from the context that nuclear weapons are being discussed, as Duncan Hunter has just finished saying that any attack should be directed at the Iraninan centrifuges being used to enrich uranium. But then Rudy continues:
And during the debate the other night, the Democrats seemed to be back in the 1990s. They don't seem to have gotten beyond the Cold War. Iran is a threat, a nuclear threat, not just because they can deliver a nuclear warhead with missiles. They're a nuclear threat because they are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism and they can hand nuclear materials to terrorists.
And we just saw it just last week in New York, an attempt by Islamist terrorists to attack JFK airport; three weeks ago, an attempt to attack Fort Dix.
These are real problems. This war is not a bumper sticker. This war is a real war.
Okay, Iran does have missiles, but they clearly don't have warheads yet and nobody has suggested that, either. So, even if you want to give Rudy a little break for misstating nuclear power for nuclear weapons, do you also give him a break for what might have been conflating the nuclear capabilities of Iran with those of Pakistan? Nope, no break deserved here.
But finally, yep, you are completely right. Bush may not have been able to pronounce it properly, but I don't think he ever displayed enough stupidity to suggest that Iran shouldn't have nuclear power. That Rudy doesn't even know the difference between nuclear power and nuclear weapons should have simply resulted in opening the trap door under him on the stage. How can this guy be a credible candidate?
-
Friedman's Casual Wishing Death Upon Others
After all, when the Roto-Rooter truck's in the neighborhood, why not take advantage?
From your update, Friedman's casual desire to "roto-rooter" Syria, since we're in Iraq anyway. The fact that there are human lives at stake means nothing to the man. He is a self-absorbed little prick, a perfect "liberal" balance to Dubya's "conservativism". Rich frat boys without an ounce of empathy between them. And not too many brains either. Gah. Need to go scrub something with bleach, besides my eyes.
-
Re: Canned Feelings
You're right about the pre-packaged thing. I suppose if Giuliani said, "well, you know we screwed the pooch on that putting the command center at the World Trade Center thing and then there I was fearing for my life when I should have been watching the whole thing from Jersey." then his response might seem genuine, instead of, as you note, pre-packaged.
I just want to throw that out there; I remember that Fox news guy (can't remember his name) making fun of Jon Stewart for tearing up when he talked about 9-11. I would just hate for us to sound like that, even a little bit.
-
Let me understand this
I think I've got it: Friedman was for invading Afghanistan, for occupying Iraq -- before he was against it, and then for it again -- and has since advocated military action against Syria, Iran and Pakistan. Hell, what I guess he really wants is a good ol'fashioned World War. I haven't seen too much in his musings about who's going to pay for it, much less how, or where we'll get the troops to do all this fighting, or what may be the strategic objectives (any junior grade officer knows you strategy dictates tactics ... well, any other than Gens. Franks and Petraeus) of any or all of these operations. I guess Serious Foreign Policy Experts like Friedman don't concern themselves with such trifling matters -- especially when they can bomb first and ask questions later.
Of course, maybe I'm not supposed to understand, just like I've never understood what qualifications Friedman has ever possessed to merit space in the NYT twice a week or a platform on some TV gabfests among equally unqualified hacks (it sure ain't talent).