Editor responding to letter in the paper
Mar. 13th, 2003 08:38 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
plutherusNormally, the San Francisco Chronicle doesn't respond to their letters to the editor. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen them do it before. But this one got a response. Sadly, the author is echoing what I've heard from many different people. I'm constantly floored by the degree of ignorance in this country, especially among the hardcore Bush supporters. I know it's bad form to accuse those who disagree with you of willful ignorance, but really, what else could account for these people's opinions?
We impeached our last president because he lied about a blow job. This one, we've caught lying, multiple times, about reasons for going to war, but a lot of people still continue to support it. Even after he admits his lies, changes his stories (and then, inevitably, starts repeating them again). This is just amazing, and frankly I can't see how it could be anything other than deliberate ignoring the facts to justify one's own hatred and bloodlust?
Anyway, the original letter and response can be found here. I'm glad that the Chronicle reversed its usual policy of not responding to letters to point out to this guy that he's not quite as informed as he thinks, despite listening to news "constantly".
Editor -- The White House always intended to go to war with Iraq with or without U.N. "approval." More than likely, because of President Bill Clinton's near decimation of our military during his too-long tenure, we were not really ready until now. There was also Secretary of State Colin Powell's desire to go to the United Nations. Third, we all are hearing that British Prime Minister Tony Blair requested it. So, get off our great president's case (Editorial, "Save face or save lives?" March 11).
What in the world is this unfounded, unbacked-up-with-facts hideous accusation that this honest and courageous administration used "forged, plagiarized or other questionable evidence"? This is your very own pipe dream. I listen to the news constantly - not just daytime talk shows. Never once have I heard even the worst enemies of the Republicans make this accusation. Never.
Editor's note: The reference to forged evidence comes from the conclusion of Mohamed ElBaradei, chief U.N. nuclear weapons inspector, that documents presented by Colin Powell allegedly showing that Niger sold uranium to Iraq were reviewed by experts and found to be "not authentic." The plagiarism reference is in connection with the British government's admission that large sections of its "intelligence" report on Iraq were lifted verbatim from magazines and academic journals -- including a graduate student's paper that had been downloaded off the Internet. Powell called the British report "a fine paper" in his presentation to the United Nations. Those challenges to Powell's evidence have been widely reported in U.S. media, including The Chronicle.
We impeached our last president because he lied about a blow job. This one, we've caught lying, multiple times, about reasons for going to war, but a lot of people still continue to support it. Even after he admits his lies, changes his stories (and then, inevitably, starts repeating them again). This is just amazing, and frankly I can't see how it could be anything other than deliberate ignoring the facts to justify one's own hatred and bloodlust?
Anyway, the original letter and response can be found here. I'm glad that the Chronicle reversed its usual policy of not responding to letters to point out to this guy that he's not quite as informed as he thinks, despite listening to news "constantly".
Editor -- The White House always intended to go to war with Iraq with or without U.N. "approval." More than likely, because of President Bill Clinton's near decimation of our military during his too-long tenure, we were not really ready until now. There was also Secretary of State Colin Powell's desire to go to the United Nations. Third, we all are hearing that British Prime Minister Tony Blair requested it. So, get off our great president's case (Editorial, "Save face or save lives?" March 11).
What in the world is this unfounded, unbacked-up-with-facts hideous accusation that this honest and courageous administration used "forged, plagiarized or other questionable evidence"? This is your very own pipe dream. I listen to the news constantly - not just daytime talk shows. Never once have I heard even the worst enemies of the Republicans make this accusation. Never.
Editor's note: The reference to forged evidence comes from the conclusion of Mohamed ElBaradei, chief U.N. nuclear weapons inspector, that documents presented by Colin Powell allegedly showing that Niger sold uranium to Iraq were reviewed by experts and found to be "not authentic." The plagiarism reference is in connection with the British government's admission that large sections of its "intelligence" report on Iraq were lifted verbatim from magazines and academic journals -- including a graduate student's paper that had been downloaded off the Internet. Powell called the British report "a fine paper" in his presentation to the United Nations. Those challenges to Powell's evidence have been widely reported in U.S. media, including The Chronicle.
