Letters to the Editor
-
On docxxxx
He, like some Clinton supporters on Salon, will never acknowledge that her campaign has kicked up a lot of dirt and unsavory claims on foreign policy and experience. For them, Hillary is beyond reproach and Obama is the devil who is stealing the presidency which was hers to have in the first place.
Madam is right to say that the doc(?) charaterizes everyone not supporting Hillary as hateful and blind followers, while all Clinton supporters know what is right for the country. I find that arrogant and condescending.
-
@haggismold
your pedantic requirement for proof of behavior designed to leave no proof is baffling.
Wasn't that what Bush said about the WMD's? I mean requiring proof is so.. so.. pedantic. Or in the words of madamfauntleroy, what a "disingenious" argument.
-
Keep reaching for "reality"
...and I think you'll find your own relativism.
-
@Uncle Fester and haggismold
"The story definitely makes it sound like there is more there there. It does leave open the question of did Hillary participate in the strategic aspects of the peace deal or strictly in the tactical sense (making lots of phone calls and arm-twisting). Both vital btw," (Uncle Fester)
I suspect it was much more in the "tactical" vein, and the many compliments paid to her really don't go further than that, to be honest. But as you say yourself, that can be in a complex and difficult situation of years duration, a vital part of the solution, even if not at all as important as other contributions. Thanks for reading the Echo article.
Haggismold says in an obviously angry post,
"David Trimble never planned any bombing campaigns, despite your crude efforts at calumny earlier....But then perhaps I shouldn't be surprised - I've lost track of the number of people who can talk about Irish nationalism to excuse violence in what remains sovereign territory of the United Kingdom,...Your comments suggest that you are one of these apologists for violence committed against someone other than you...."
Perhaps you mean these comments, in my earlier letters?
I find your comments about Hume and Trimble interesting and also the comment that the Unionists--Mr. Trimble included--felt we were favoring the Nationalists.
I wish I could think more highly of Mr. Trimble; you know him and respect him, but as an interested outsider I always found him infuriating and hostile to the legitimate Nationalist demands. Too quick by half to excuse or overlook the outrages by the paras on his side of the aisle. But I'll take your word for it, and try to think better of him.
I did express my Nationalist view of Trimble, but also specifically deferred to MacK's superior familiarty with him and said I'd try to change my viewe. Calumny? Apologist for violence? I fail to see how that is a fair estimate of what I say.
Then you turn to our Canada/NAFTA debate. My point from the beginning was that it is untrue to say categorically that both campaigns definitely briefed the Canadians, as many Hillary attackers in the media and on blogs keep doing. You say:
"your pedantic requirement for proof of behavior designed to leave no proof is baffling. Perhaps you are just that partisan, perhaps you are a naif, no matter...If you really think that MacK's comments are wild speculation and assertion."
They are not "wild speculation" and I never said they were. They ARE assertions without any foundation in fact whatsoever. I do not require "proof of behavior designed to leave no proof." I argue, and still do, that without such proof, it is unfair to maintain the behavior happened, as a statement of fact instead of opinion, however informedAfter he asserted both campaigns had talked to the Canadians and that the Canadians "will never say yea or nea", I provided this from CBC:
"Hillary Clinton's campaign team has never told any Canadian officials that their candidate's anti-NAFTA statements are just political posturing, the Prime Minister's Office said Friday.
In the midst of the so-called NAFTA-gate affair, the PMO clarified — two days after it was first asked a question about the matter — that Canadian officials never requested, nor received, a private briefing from Clinton's aides on her position on the continental trade treaty.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie, reportedly told journalists that both U.S. Democratic presidential candidates had privately downplayed their anti-NAFTA rhetoric, but he now says he can't recall his exact statement.
(Tom Hanson/Canadian Press) "The answer is no, they did not," Sandra Buckler, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said Friday.
I asked MacK for a minimal (I thought) response:
I know this direct and clear denial by the Prime Minister of Canada will mean nothing to those Obama supporters who continue to bring up this fals charge, but I expect someone as civil as yourself to agree your earlier statement is not correct
+MacK's response was rather testy and my rejoinder to that was, as well. And the conversation that began as a civil one on both sides did in fact degenerate, though not, I think to the level you accuse me of. It ended for me with this appeal to MacK:
His answer, and your later post, were pretty harsh attacks on me, using adjectives I certainly didn't apply to him at all. I am taking this long because I have admired your posts for years and never expected to be the target of your anger like this. I pay no attention to the cheap little schoolyard attacks on me that some keep providing but I take seriously yours. I think I was fair, and did not make some of the charges or claims you saddle me with. I do regret the decline of civility in the exchanges between MacK and myself.
-
@ realitycounts, @ doc5467
realitycounts wrote:
Wasn't that what Bush said about the WMD's? I mean requiring proof is so.. so.. pedantic.
So nearly a touche moment, but not quite - Bush et al manufactured evidence, and then denied the veracity of what was (not) found on the ground. Not quite the same thing.
Nice try though.
doc5467 - I apologize, that was an unfair characterization of you and your prior letter. I made you into a representative of a particular viewpoint that I find infuriating, and that wasn't cool.
I will freely admit that Northern Ireland is a red flag subject for me, and while I remain somewhat suspicious of a gang of urban university-educated maoists allied with rural hell-raisers, I do recognize that both sides had and continue to have legitimate claims politically, and decry the thugs of both sides for their descent into petty crime.
But getting back to the bunfight at hand, I will concede that I am not aware of any proof extant that the Clinton campaign has been in touch with the Canadian government, but equally reiterate that I would be extraordinarily surprised to discover that such communication had not taken place.
Again, my apologies for making an unfair characterization of you.