AnalPhilosopher

“[I]t is ambition enough to be employed as an under-labourer in clearing the ground a little,
and removing some of the rubbish that lies in the way to knowledge.” —John Locke, 1689

“[P]hilosophy can no more show a man what he should attach importance to
than geometry can show a man where he should stand.” —Peter Winch, 1968

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “Rumsfeld Says War Critics Haven’t Learned Lessons of History” (news article, Aug. 30):

If the Bush administration does not screen speeches given by cabinet members, it should start.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s smug rhetoric, directed at critics of the administration’s policies in Iraq and in the war on terror, arrogantly demeans not only a good portion of Congress, but at least half of the citizens and voters of this country.

Now, not only are critics accused of being unpatriotic, but according to Secretary Rumsfeld, they also suffer from “moral or intellectual confusion.”

Instead of educating us on why they are right, President Bush and his team are constantly telling critics that they are just plain wrong.

It must be nice to be so smart, so moral and so right, 24/7.

The slick public relations effort of a few months ago that tried to paint the president as a leader now willing to listen to ideas and suggestions from his critics was, in fact, just that—a slick public relations effort.

This administration will not be held accountable, and there will be no acceptance of new ideas. There will be a continuation of the same tired, failed policies.

Patricia A. Weller
Emmitsburg, Md., Aug. 30, 2006

Webster (mail):
Does this clown have a point to make or is she merely upset that someone disagrees with her? Does she simply have no point of Rumsfeld's to refute? Why does this crybaby letter merit publishing?
8.31.2006 7:59pm
James R. Ament (mail) (www):
Why does this crybaby letter merit publishing? Because the NYT hates George Bush.
8.31.2006 9:22pm
Peg (mail) (www):
Too bad the MSM saw fit to give their own, totally inaccurate interpretation of Rumsfeld's speech instead of the actual speech itself. Utterly amazing to me how little of what is said about it can actually be found in the real speech.

When I asked people saying similar things to what Ms. Weller did about the speech to "tell me where Rumsfeld actually says that" - they answered that "it wasn't there, but everyone knows what he really meant."

Lord help us! If you know what I mean....
8.31.2006 9:34pm
Frank Borger:
Folks, try to think back to 8 years ago. Why was there no backlash against Clinton's actions and the actions of Clinton's Veep?

1/ Clinton really didn't do very much. I remember one wag's comment that Clinton wanted his legacy to be "8 years of growing economy"

2/ Gore was totally out of the picture. He chaired the Senate, (but wasn't a power broker,) and little else.

What the leftists can't stand is seeing a Veep actually heavily involved in operations, with his own opinions and not afraid to state them.
9.1.2006 7:08am
Account:
Password:
Remember info?