WEDNESDAY’S LETTERS: Press and Iran, Reactions to Libby’s Conviction

RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook
Facebook
Twitter
Visit Us
LinkedIn

By: E&P Staff

In today’s letters, readers react to the Lewis Libby conviction, and a reader applauds Greg Mitchell’s column on whow the press is hyping the threat of Iran.

***

Reaction to the Libby Conviction

Indeed [Tim Russert] may take no joy. Either from poor memory or in self interest, he may well believe that his testimony may not have been accurate.

Joe Graetch
Santa Barbara, Calif.



So, juror Denis Collins told reporters that the jury felt Libby was only a “fall guy” and asked themselves, “where is Rove and the other guys?” Well, they didn’t lie to a grand jury or an investigator, that’s why they weren’t on trial. As far as being a “fall guy,” that was strickly U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s call as to who went to trial. You can bet that if Fitzgerald thought he had a case against anyone else he would have taken it to court. No one in President Bush’s administration asked Libby to lie for them or else there would have been grounds for a conspiracy charge. There was no reason to lie and no crime for which to take the “fall”. Yet, that’s all a part of the confusion compounded by the prosecution and vast majority of the press calling this the Plame “leak” case throughout the trial. In fact, it was the Libby perjury and obstruction of justice case.

Michael Birmingham
Manassas, Va.

***

The Press and Iran

Keep harping. Little of what I read suggests that the mainstream media has “learned” anything.

For that matter, I see little evidence that those who were ostensibly elected because of their stand regarding the illegal invasion and occuption of Iraq and going to do anything constructive to get us out of Iraq. Today I read an article that mentioned a “permanent presence” of the US in Iraq. Has the mainstream press discussed this? NO. Have there been a number of indications, such as mention of permanent bases, etc., that the Bush Administration definitely desires a permanent US presence in Iraq? YES. How else will the private oil companies be suffciently well protected so they can extract oil, make their huge profits, etc.? Isn’t that what the US military is for?

If it’s not, then perhaps there should be some discussion. Right now, as again, the MSM has not discussed in any significant way, we have a Congress that can’t even be bothered to read bills that deprive Congress of power/make Bush more of a dictator then he already is, deprives US citizens and legal residents of what few rights we have.

I’d say that not only does the MSM still kowtow to the Bush Administration and parrot most of what it says or says is the “truth,” but it also wholly fails (and has failed for 7 years) to look at what the Bushies are not saying but what they are doing. Cover not just what the Bushies tell them to cover. Talk about issues that are very important and partly because the Bush Administration is not talking about it because it doesn’t want these issues talked about. Certainly wants no public input on.

So yes, keep harping AND keep harping on what the MSM isn’t covering — like really important issues. Think how much “permanent bases” could cost to build, to maintain, how many Americans could die or be permanently injured. That’s not something worth discussing before the decision is made to build them?

Susan Hogg
Newport, Ore.

***

Ann’s Coultergeist

I found it interesting that the Lancaster New Era, in explaining to readers why Ann Coulter’s column would disappear from the opinion page, noted “lots of conservative columnists” discuss current events with insight.

Michelle Malkin was among the long list of names spewed forth.

You hardly have to read even one sentence of one of Malkin’s columns to understand that she is almost as bad, if not worse, than Coulter. The New Era should be prepared for the potential of Malkin to get just as nasty.

Nick Hedrick
Crawfordsville, Ind.



I respectfully write to [Universal Syndicate] today asking that you no longer provide a platform for a person, Ann Coulter, who has proven she will flippantly use hate speech for a cheap laugh.

As the largest independent newspaper syndicate in the world, you have a responsibility to the American people, including gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans, not to become a platform for this type of shameful discourse.

Please put a stop to her hateful speech by no longer carrying Ann Coulter as a syndicated columnist.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.

Dave Newman

Leave a Reply

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