TODAY’S LETTERS: Readers Respond to Ann Coulter, Buscaglia and Bob Woodward

By: E&P Staff

Readers wrote in this week about a newspaper executive who was removed from her upcoming post after it was discovered she falsified her credentials. The debate also continued about Ann Coulter, Bob Woodward and aSupreme Court decision on weakening school integration.

Buscaglia to Remain President of INMA
Earl Wilkinson is “proud that Ms. Buscaglia is the president of INMA” and he “thinks you can learn from” a person who falsifies her educational background, admits the fabrication only when confronted with the lie, blames it on youth and inexperience, makes no attempt in 30 years to correct the problem.

While the story states that the “news story doesn’t change the fact that Marti is in the midst of a stellar career”. We believe this internationally-read news DOES change the fact that “Marti is in the midst of a stellar career.” The fact is her behavior speaks candidly about her 30-year absence of ethics, trustworthiness, and integrity — all key components of the publishing business. This is stellar?

Davis Solom

Cartoonists Slam Supreme Court’s Anti-Integration Ruling
Thanks for this story. It shows that in an ever-changing world, the herd of independent minds in the field of political cartooning for urban newspapers can be counted on to work hard to keep American political opinion where it should be — in the 1970s.

I am disappointed, however, that the old reliable (and not to add, subtle) “Supreme Court Justices in Ku Klux Klan costume,” perhaps penned by the venerable Mike Luckovich or Signe Wilkinson, did not turn up in your report. It has so often and so (yawn) wittily followed politically-incorrect rulings in the past that I thought there was some kind of rule.

I also thought this cartoon theme was in some all-purpose, choose-from-the-menu anthology of cartoons employed by most editorial cartoonists, since the same narrow sixties-addled themes show up with predictable regularity, like sitcom plots. I’d hazard that this omission might mean the cartoonist club is off its meds, but the tone of the drawings cited in your article suggests a lot of them don’t take necessary medication to control self-righteous hysteria in the first place.

Mark Richard
Columbus, Ohio

Woodward: I Should Have Probed Iraqi WMD More Closely
I completely disagree with Bob Woodward. It wasn’t a monumental task. It was pretty easy to tell that the Bush administration and the White House neoconservatives created a phony evidence case on Iraqi WMD violations and that they made false 9/11 terrorist threat linkages that were horribly exaggerated and bogus. It wasn’t a monumental task to ferret that out.

All the big media types like Bob Woodward had to do was ask a few obvious questions about the neoconservative evidence case and demand an actual answer from the Bush people with some follow-up questions. That?s about all it would have taken. Has reporting in the United States lost the ability to ask a follow-up question? Is that too monumental a task with the Bush administration these days for the American Fourth Estate?

Woodward totally forgets to mention that the United Nations had WMD inspectors under control of Hans Blix in Iraq at the time. The Hans Blix team was free to search everywhere in Iraq for WMD and they did not find any. This was well before the March 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration.

Also, President Bush decided to skip the promised 2nd U.N. Security Council vote on Resolution 1441 to launch his oily, illegal war. Why was that? Because to make the Bush administration case, Colin Powell, the designated White House patsy, had given a phony Iraqi WMD violation PowerPoint presentation at the U.N. that fell apart within hours of being shown. The United Nations didn?t support Bush because his case against Iraq was a total joke. The United Nations Security Council figured it out, why not Bob Woodward? Was it too monumental a task for an American reporter?

Or was it that the famous reporter Bob Woodward developed a fear of asking Bush administration officials a few skeptical questions that demanded a real answer that he had to stick with it to get like during Watergate. Was he afraid to lose his easy access to power for his string of books?

Or perhaps Bob Woodward didn?t even bother to read some of the newspaper stories published in his own Washington Post covering, oh say, Hans Blix actively searching Iraq with his U.N. team for WMD signs but not finding any WMD signs in Iraq -? that was well before that illegal March 2003 “shock and awe” sneak attack.

J. Scott
Everett, WA


Coulter Column Has More Harsh Words For Elizabeth Edwards
Can you (or anyone) explain why that appalling vulgarian has readers? She is vicious, reckless, and apparently without principle. I am amazed by the statements I see quoted, and sorry for anyone who feels that her writing satisfies some need. They deserve better, even if they don’t know it.

Katharine W. Rylaarsdam
Baltimore


Ann Coulter is a divider who takes pride in insulting anyone who believes in civilized conversation and debate. Elizabeth Edwards called her on her hate mongering and she screams for her “right to speak.” Ann?s contribution to the culture of this country is negligible while Elizabeth Edwards will leave a legacy that will improve the lives and health of women. I would like Ann Colter to discuss what legacy she expects to bequeath to the women of this country. I suspect her legacy will be “Much to do about nothing.”

David A. Dowding

RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook
Facebook
Twitter
Visit Us
LinkedIn

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *