Letters to the Editor
-
wow. ballsy/ It's not 2003. Their time of being above the law over. This is not goign to fly
"Rove lawyer declines invitation for "a-- kicking"
In a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), Karl Rove's attorney declines to make his client immediately available in response to a committee subpoena.
"Contrary to your letter of May 14, 2008," begins Rove lawyer Robert Luskin, "I do not misunderstand either the committee's procedures or the scope of its interest in Mr. Rove; nor, in light of your reported remarks about the need for 'someone' to 'kick his ass,' am I the least bit confused about the Committee's motives and intentions."
After uttering the remarks to which Luskin refers — first reported here in the Crypt — Conyers suggested that he would use his authority to arrest Rove if he failed to comply with a subpoena and appear before the committee.
"
-
NYShooter
I thought the context was "taken over" versus his "invited in". In Eastern Europe the Soviets literally "took over" states after claiming they were invited in. The Soviets didn't take over Africa, Asian, or Latin American states. They offered military aid, etc, but the context of "taken over" really isn't the same for me because the African, Asian, and Latin American governments were not puppets in the same way that Poland or Eastern Germany was. They had a certain autonomy that they used to play the US off the Soviets for money. I guess the language you used didn't make sense for me. For me, "take over" meant that the Soviets ruled those countries in a sphere of influence through puppet governments.
The reason I said that is because I've had more than a few Soviet apologists try just that argument. If you know people who escaped from gulags, that's pretty horrific. I know and teach about people who have lived under and had to escape Soviet domination. It is painfully personal to me.
I am sorry for your loss in the war. There have been many monsters in the Twentieth Century. Your family did not deserve that.
-
NYShooter
I apologize if you thought I had insulted your family. I was only insulting the Soviet general.
-
propoganda pundits. there time is up. How, you ask? An active participating poplance who holds them to account for their lies. and attempts to keep the elderly in fear and hatful of change/the youth
"Dear Matthew,
For the first time in our history, the American military has turned its operational apparatus upon the American public. And it's high time that it stop.
On April 21, the New York Times ran a shocking expose on a Pentagon program to generate favorable news coverage of the Iraq war. Starting with the run up to the war, the program fed talking points and information to a set of retired military officials who appeared on TV thousands of times parading as objective pundits.
We're teaming up with some other groups like Freepress to send a letter to the five members of Congress - Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Armed Service Committee Chair Ike Skelton, Senate Armed Service Committee Chair Carl Levin and House Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs Chair John Tierney - who can start up Congressional hearings on this despicable program.
Add your name to the letter:
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/propagandapundit
Psychological operations like this may not leave shell craters, but they are strategic military operations with a specific military purpose - in this case altering American public opinion. That's why it's against the law to use programs like this against Americans.
It's up to Congress to step in and do something to end this program and hold those responsible for it accountable. Please take a moment to send a powerful message to our Congressional leaders that we will not stand idly by to be manipulated by our own government.
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/propagandapundit
Thank you for taking action,
Jane Hamsher and the Firedoglake Action Team
"
-
On Hillary's latest claims of sexism
This from Peggy Noonan's column today:
So, to address the charge that sexism did her {Hillary} in:
It is insulting, because it asserts that those who supported someone else this year were driven by low prejudice and mindless bias.
It is manipulative, because it asserts that if you want to be understood, both within the community and in the larger brotherhood of man, to be wholly without bias and prejudice, you must support Mrs. Clinton.
It is not true. Tough hill-country men voted for her, men so backward they'd give the lady a chair in the union hall. Tough Catholic men in the outer suburbs voted for her, men so backward they'd call a woman a lady. And all of them so naturally courteous that they'd realize, in offering the chair or addressing the lady, that they might have given offense, and awkwardly joke at themselves to take away the sting. These are great men. And Hillary got her share, more than her share, of their votes. She should be a guy and say thanks.
It is prissy. Mrs. Clinton's supporters are now complaining about the Hillary nutcrackers sold at every airport shop. Boo hoo. If Golda Meir, a woman of not only proclaimed but actual toughness, heard about Golda nutcrackers, she would have bought them by the case and given them away as party favors.
It is sissy. It is blame-gaming, whining, a way of not taking responsibility, of not seeing your flaws and addressing them. You want to say "Girl, butch up, you are playing in the leagues, they get bruised in the leagues, they break each other's bones, they like to hit you low and hear the crack, it's like that for the boys and for the girls."
And because the charge of sexism is all of the above, it is, ultimately, undermining of the position of women. Or rather it would be if its source were not someone broadly understood by friend and foe alike to be willing to say anything to gain advantage.
-
Thanks for that virtue. You do know this is joan's idol, don't ya. Looks like Noonan is fighting for her credibility. Makes you wonder why all media folks aren't
"Great women, all different, but great in terms of size, of impact on the world and of struggles overcome. Struggle was not something they read about in a book. They did not use guilt to win election -- it comes up zero if you Google "Thatcher" and "You're just picking on me because I'm a woman." Instead they used the appeals men used: stronger leadership, better ideas, a superior philosophy.
You know where I'm going, for you know where she went. Hillary Clinton complained again this week that sexism has been a major dynamic in her unsuccessful bid for political dominance. She is quoted by the Washington Post's Lois Romano decrying the "sexist" treatment she received during the campaign, and the "incredible vitriol that has been engendered" by those who are "nothing but misogynists." The New York Times reported she told sympathetic bloggers in a conference call that she is saddened by the "mean-spiritedness and terrible insults" that have been thrown "at you, for supporting me, and at women in general."
Where to begin? One wants to be sympathetic to Mrs. Clinton at this point, if for no other reason than to show one's range. But her last weeks have been, and her next weeks will likely be, one long exercise in summoning further denunciations. It is something new in politics, the How Else Can I Offend You Tour. And I suppose it is aimed not at voters -- you don't persuade anyone by complaining in this way, you only reinforce what your supporters already think -- but at history, at the way history will tell the story of the reasons for her loss.
So, to address the charge that sexism did her in:
It is insulting, because it asserts that those who supported someone else this year were driven by low prejudice and mindless bias
"
peggy noonan
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
thanks virtue. you left out the important parts, though. :)
what's the differance you ask? the differance is race DOEs have an impact on this election. It is documented and proven. Gender bias DOES NOT, have an impact. I haven't seen it anyway. I can hear them now. Obama is not whining about race. I am. others are. that is the differance.