If you were editor of a major American newspaper, would you publish letters to your department tremendously disrespectful of the President?
After all, you probably have hundreds nay thousands to choose from on a daily basis. Why bother with ones defaming the most powerful man on the planet?
Sadly, such decency didn't seem present at the Washington Post Saturday which actually published the following (emphasis added):
Honor Where Due
Saturday, March 29, 2008; A14
Why is President Bush, and not an Iraq war veteran, throwing out the first pitch at Nationals Park [Sports, March 28]?
The veteran is far more deserving of the first-pitch honor than the president is.
ERIC LEIFER
I'm surprised the editors didn't answer their reader by adding that it should be a veteran highly-critical of the war and the Administration.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Have you seen the WaPo's
March 29, 2008 - 15:24 ET by fitzfongHave you seen the WaPo's circulation numbers recently? They'd be lucky to get hundreds of readers. No way they get thousands or even hundreds of letters.
What if W declined?
March 29, 2008 - 15:41 ET by Philly Pete 07If the President declined the offer to throw out the first pitch at the stadium the people afflicted with the Bush Derangement Syndrome would be outraged over that. I suspect that the author of this letter as well as the editorial board of WaPo are victims of this same malady. As Commander-in-Chief it is fitting that the President be invited to represent all of the Iraq veterans. But the clown that wrote the letter along with the editor who submitted the letter are so blinded by their overwhelming hatred for President Bush that they can't see or think straight. It is a condition that is found among our liberal population in epidemic proportions!
First, why can't the WaPo
March 29, 2008 - 15:49 ET by balboaFirst, why can't the WaPo publish this letter? You're not allowed to publish letters like that?
Second, not much of a shot at Bush, really.
well bal
March 29, 2008 - 15:53 ET by botgobviously they can --------- so your point??????
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
Noel's asking why you would
March 29, 2008 - 15:58 ET by balboaNoel's asking why you would publish such a letter. Why question is why not?
2 fer bal
March 29, 2008 - 16:02 ET by botg"why question is why not" is they can't publish??
my brain hurts (or sumptin) whatchoo saying here?
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
2 fer bal
March 29, 2008 - 16:02 ET by botg"why question is why not" is they can't publish??
my brain hurts (or sumptin) whatchoo saying here?
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
Sorry. MY question is why
March 29, 2008 - 16:06 ET by balboaSorry. MY question is why not. :-)
ok they should not
March 29, 2008 - 16:13 ET by botg(not can not) print a letter that questions the legitimacy of the POTUS throwing out the first pitch at the Washington baseball game because it demeans the office.
It also alienates 1/2 of their potential readership
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
Exactly
March 29, 2008 - 16:52 ET by NiftySwellWhy is it all of a sudden acceptable to alienate so many people...it is like saying to a sector of the public that we can do without your patronage. Just got back from visiting my college town and every cash register I walk up to at practically every store has a 'Cheney is evil' or 'Bush Lied' magnet or sticker on it. I set my stuff down and walk out... I did notice that there was a ton of stuff on clearance but dont know if that has anything to do with it. Fact is I stopped my newspaper subscription, stopped watching the Simpsons, stopped tuning in to certain shows because the BDS was too much for me to take. I can take a logical statement against the prez, but cannot stand all this emotional, unfounded crap that streams out of peoples mouths. Where they blame everything from hurricanes to the flat tire they got on the administration. I think it was the Simpsons episode where Lisa was pointing out that a determined populace couldnt be overcome by force...indicating the conflict in Falujah that pushed me over the edge and away from my favorite show years ago...Now I wonder how that episode and many other will be viewed as they are proven wrong?
I really do wonder if the circulation is due to their liberal slant or due to the choices people have for news nowadays?
there was a Simpsons episode on last Sunday
March 29, 2008 - 19:25 ET by Jnoble..where Bart started to make some sort of stupid remark about the Patriot Act and how it's illegal or whatever and I immediatly turned it off. I havn't really liked the show in years anyway. I can watch and rewatch almost anything from '91 to 99, but after that it started to go downhill
balboa
March 29, 2008 - 15:59 ET by Noel SheppardB,
Show me where I said they can't. Please? Pretty please? With sugar on top?
Next, you think it's not a shot at the President saying he's undeserving to throw out the first pitch?
Honestly, I often wonder what color the sky is in your world. ns
I never said it wasn't a
March 29, 2008 - 16:05 ET by balboaI never said it wasn't a shot. Just not much of one.
I kinda sorta agree with
March 29, 2008 - 16:13 ET by Indiana JoeI kinda sorta agree with you, bal. Not much of a shot. Not the full-blown rant I'm sure this character is capable of. But to suggest that any President is somehow "not worthy" to throw out the first pitch (a LONG tradition in MLB) is definitely disrespectful. WaPo should exhibit better judgement than this.
Remember the Clinton battle-cry: "Respect the office, if not the man."
The letter says that a vet
March 29, 2008 - 16:28 ET by balboaThe letter says that a vet is more deserving to throw out the first pitch instead of Bush. That's just not that big a deal. The WaPo is perfectly justified in printing it.
You know, even if you don't
March 29, 2008 - 15:53 ET by Gary P JacksonYou know, even if you don't respect the man, you should respect the office. Bush is the President, and Commander-In-Chief. That office comes with a certain amout of deserved respect.
A much as most of us dislike Bill Clinton, we would have NEVER disrespected the office in this way. (even though Clinton did much to disrespective it himself)
One has to wonder what these nimrods are going to do in 2009. Where are they gonna channel all that hate?
Well, first off, Gary, I
March 29, 2008 - 16:08 ET by Indiana JoeWell, first off, Gary, I think it's too early (or too late?) to presume they won't have McCain to kick around. Things have been in high flux lately, y'know?
And even if they don't, there's ALWAYS a target for some people. As long as there is a conservative left alive, they'll have someone to hate.
I'm afraid you're right!
March 29, 2008 - 16:43 ET by Gary P JacksonI'm afraid you're right! McCain will be the left's designated object of blame for everything bad that happens in the world.
But at some point doesn't all of this hate just cause one to implode?
Bush's 3rd Term
March 29, 2008 - 17:25 ET by Del DolemonteThe Democrats have already started to refer to McCain's possible victory as a 3rd Bush term. There is your answer.
I guess the dims are
March 30, 2008 - 14:29 ET by ahusserI guess the dims are already conceding defeat. The word possible should be changed to probable as the dims continue to nominate moonbat losers. The real question is why many supposedly rational people actually vote for these dysfunctional lefty fakers. I asked my very lefty relations why do the dims continue to field losers. There has got to be a dim out there that can compete. But that person probably isn't on the extreme left wing of the party and doesn't have a shot in hades.
Maybe a veteran like this
March 29, 2008 - 16:01 ET by bigtimerMaybe a veteran like this would be perfect for the guy that wrote the letter that WaPo seemed to need to post...this guy would fill both their bills perfectly.
Btw...Mark Steyn is/was right...as always.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Why would print a letter
March 29, 2008 - 16:16 ET by motherbeltWhy would print a letter that gives Bush a jab? Because it's what they live for.....
OK, let's take the letter-writer's point of view.. an Iraq vet is more deserving.. Well, would the widow(er) or a child of soldier killed in Iraq be more deserving than the vet?
Does this little honor have to go to "the absolutely most deserving" person they can find? I'm sure someone could always come up with a person they think is more deserving than whoever they pick.
noel is right.
March 29, 2008 - 16:25 ET by crsheddnoel sez:
'If you were editor of a major American newspaper, would you publish letters to your department tremendously disrespectful of the President?'
we know that NOT A SINGLE PAPER in this country EVER printed any letter disrespectful of clinton, carter, johnson, etc.
why do they have to start now? we know it is just because bush is a republican.
When Juanita Brodderick
March 29, 2008 - 16:43 ET by JerryWhen Juanita Brodderick accused Clinton of rape on a national tv interview with Lisa Meyers, not only did the newspapers refuse to print any stories on it, they refused to field ANY letters to the editor on the subject. Would they offer Bush the same courtesy?
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
thank you for backing me
March 30, 2008 - 13:12 ET by crsheddthank you for backing me up. this just proves that:
"we know that NOT A SINGLE PAPER in this country EVER printed any letter disrespectful of clinton, carter, johnson, etc. "
As commander in chief of
March 29, 2008 - 16:26 ET by mattmAs commander in chief of the U.S. military, technically speaking, President Bush IS a veteran of the Iraq War, the Afghanistan campaign and every other military operation under his command.
But he is also a humble man who would willingly give that honor to someone who served in combat.
I wonder if Mr. Leifer would have made that suggestion if he had been offered the honor of throwing out the first pitch, or if his feigned outrage is just another opportunity to bash the President.
oh puh-lease
March 29, 2008 - 21:58 ET by Angry AfricanI agreed with everything everyone said so far in their comments.
Stupid thing for them to publish, but it is their right. It does show respect for the office of the President. All right.
But puh-lease. You go too far. Don't call someone who sends people to war but dodged his own war a vet. That is an insult to vet. You think he is humble? Standing on the ship and shouting - Mission Accomplished! And then it turns out he is wrong. It only started a much more deadlier fight.
Don't do that man. Don't. That is disrespectful of the vets who fought and those who fight for everyone regardless of their politics.
Don't call someone who
March 29, 2008 - 22:14 ET by R D HelmDon't call someone who sends people to war but dodged his own war a vet.
First of all, George W. Bush was a trained fighter pilot. As such, he risked his life every single time he sat in one and started the engine.
William Jefferson Clinton was a draft-dodging, military-loathing coward who fled to the former Soviet union, where he proceeded to speak out against his very own country. When he became president, he too sent American soldiers into combat.
Not only that, but he essentially ignored the five attacks Osama's illiterate goons successfully carried out against my country while he was CIC of the armed forces of same.
This is the point in the conversation that I will ask you politely to produce credible evidence, aside from Dan Blather's forgeries, that George W. Bush skated on his obligations as an officer in the United States Military.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Or you serious?
March 30, 2008 - 11:22 ET by Angry AfricanYou can't be serious. You are joking right? I really don't know - please let me know.
I take my life in my own hands each time I start my car engine as well. And ain't no way in hell I am going to call myself some hero.
And I wasn't defeding Clinton now was I? So no need for me to go there.
Bush served all right. He served Kool-Aid and you keep on drinking it baby.
Bush served, you didn't
March 30, 2008 - 13:55 ET by CobraManPresident Bush was training for a war that ended; yet you think he tried to avoid combat? Just who’s drinking the Kool Aid here? Hint: it’s not the rest of us!
In case you didn’t know, President Bush flew high-speed interceptors for the Texas Air National Guard. That's a lot more dangerous than sitting in your car and starting your engine. He was training for carrier duty when the Vietnam War ended. That also ended his chance to become a carrier pilot as all available slots were being given to pilots with prior combat experience after the war ended in 1973.
As for his bravery and skill as a pilot; you DO remember when he landed on the flight deck of a carrier, right? It was on the news, I doubt you missed it. That's the equivalent of driving your car into your garage at 60 miles an hour with one eye closed and with a stuck throttle. Not an easy thing to do, is it?
So, tell me again how you can equate flying interceptors with driving your car? You can't and any attempt to do so makes you look foolish.
Obviously, he is not
March 30, 2008 - 14:02 ET by JerryObviously, he is not worried about appearing foolish. Or else he is too foolish to realize he is appearing foolish.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Oops - missed the purple heart
March 30, 2008 - 18:15 ET by Angry AfricanI must have missed that one where he fought so hard to get into Vietnam. We should give him veteran rights for all the hard work he did to try and get in. That must be the period that can't be accounted for right?
Car - plane = tongue in cheek. If I have to look up to everyone who flies a plane as a hero then my life will be full of heroworshipping. My brother-in-law flies and he beats his wife. So no respect there mate. Actual action make you a hero - not the training you get. It is when you are under fire when that decision is made. Not when you practice.
I practice playing chess - call me Kasparov.
I don't mind looking foolish. It makes the kids laugh. At least I don't write foolish statements... unlike some other people I know who thinks flying a plane makes you a vet and a hero...
Another tired liberal lie.
March 29, 2008 - 22:16 ET by Gary P JacksonAnother tired liberal lie. Bush did NOT dodge "his own war". (I think you mean Vietnam)
However, Clinton did. And he threw out a couple of baseballs! Also sent a bunch of men and women off to war, where they still are!
Are you gonna whine if somehow Hillary or Obama wins the election and have to serve as CIC? Those two never served, nowhere.
Please tell me how you intend to reconcile that.
Bush and Nam
March 29, 2008 - 22:21 ET by JerWell, I would suggest that a pretty good case could be made that both Clinton and Bush "dodged" Viet Nam.
Jer
Depends on who's telling
March 29, 2008 - 22:41 ET by Gary P JacksonDepends on who's telling the story. It has been said that Bush wanted to go to Vietnam, but wasn't sent. After all, Bush 41 is a decorated WWII pilot.
Who knows, since neither of us was there.
Same kind of goes for Clinton. Did he dodge, or just not get called up. Depends on who's telling the story.
Thankfully, we have an all volunteer army now. Seems to work better.
Depends on who's telling the
March 29, 2008 - 22:45 ET by balboaDepends on who's telling the story.
Truer words were never typed. :-)
My dad
March 30, 2008 - 11:25 ET by Angry AfricanMy dad was a racist bigot who benefit from Apartheid by torturing people. Ain't no way I am going to be like that. What Bush Sr did has no relation to what Bush baby does.
....ah..well
March 30, 2008 - 01:04 ET by gfrrocks...no you couldn't. Apples and oranges...don't even try that BDS. One served and one dodged(BJC). Truth in advertising.....
from behind the bar
March 30, 2008 - 11:17 ET by Angry AfricanOne dodged - yes. The other served - yes, from behind the bar.
The war was over
March 30, 2008 - 14:05 ET by CobraManI think it would be more accurate to say that the war dodged Bush since he was still in training for carrier duty when the war ended in 1973.
First of all, the troops,
March 30, 2008 - 13:53 ET by JerryFirst of all, the troops, who put up the banner, were shouting "Mission Accomplished", and the mission of overthrowing Sadaam Hussein, WAS in fact, ACCOMPLISHED!
Secondly, how did he dodge "his" war?? He did everything that was asked of him. He did not write a letter to Congress, saying he "loathed" the military, like another president who will remain nameless. He did not lead anti-American protests in Moscow while our troops were dying in Vietnam, like the other president. He did not start a war with Iraq to stall an impeachment vote, like the other president. Bush, went to war to PROTECT our COUNTRY, which he loves.
Lastly, it is the TROOPS who love and RESPECT this president. You know, the ones who you claim are being disrespected by Bush. Just ask them how they feel about the man, especially in comparison to the other president.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Damn
March 31, 2008 - 08:00 ET by Angry AfricanThe computer shut down so I have to try and comment again.
1. President Bush shouted mission accomplished. But it wasn't. (i) we went in to find WMD (mission not accomplished). (ii) we went in to find and kill the terrorists (mission not accomplished). That was a battle against terrorism won and not the war. It was premature.
2. I wasn't defending the other President. Or even trying to. It was about President Bush. I support him in fighting terrorism. But he didn't do that. He went into Iraq where there were no to minimal Al Qaeda presence. The problem was in Afghanistan were the war is still not over - mission not accomplished. And the terrorist came from Saudi Arabia - or most of them. And Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan - still haven't found him. Iraq was a mistake because it took our eye off the terrorist who attacked on 9/11 - and that is my problem. Not fighting terrorism - I support any President who fights those coqardly bastards.
3. Of course the troops respect the office and most likely President Bush as well. Haven't seen polls though. But that is right as the military is there to support the US and the office without bias.
Still sticking to my dodging position though
AA
March 31, 2008 - 20:09 ET by botgwhen did W shout mission accomplished?
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
He didn't.
March 31, 2008 - 21:19 ET by JerHe didn't.
Jer
♥
March 31, 2008 - 20:19 ET by botg♥
Angry, Thanks for a
March 31, 2008 - 21:58 ET by JerryAngry,
Thanks for a reasoned response.
1. I personally would have had NO problem with any leader proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" after we deposed Hitler in Nazi Germany, even though the war was far from over. I have never understood why the left has had such a difficult time accepting a moment of heart-felt celebration shared between a president and his troops.
2. With all due respect, Bush did begin in Afghanistan, where OBL was reported to be. And we did in a matter of months, what the Soviet Union could not do in a decade. He then sought to expand the WOT, which is the smart thing to do; open up a second front. If you recall, right after 9/11 he had identified Iraq as one of the "Axis of Evil" countries. What better place to start? After all, Iraq was in violation of 19 UN resolutions and also the terms of urrender from Gulf War I. Do you actually believe the "world" would have allowed us to invade Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?
3. With the former president, the troops supported the office, in name only. They support and love this president, not because they have to, but because they choose to.
[Sorry, this was originally posted in the wrong place, so I moved it here where it belongs]
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Jerry
March 31, 2008 - 22:17 ET by botgWhen did W shout Mission Accomplished?
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
botg, I know the troops
March 31, 2008 - 22:31 ET by Jerrybotg,
I know the troops hung the banner, but I agree, I don't recall GWB shouting anything. But even if he had, what's the big deal? The commander in chief was just enjoying a moment with his troops, who were elated at having deposed Hussein in a matter of days with minimal casualties.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
yes Jerry
March 31, 2008 - 23:00 ET by botgthe banner was hung to celebrate the Carrier group returning home after accomplishing it's mission. mission≠battle≠front≠war≠total victory
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
I drank the Kool-Aid
April 1, 2008 - 09:29 ET by Angry AfricanIf that is the case then I apologize - I drank the Kool-Aid. Sorry to all and especially to the troops.
I stand by the rest of my post though.
Thanks
April 1, 2008 - 09:25 ET by Angry AfricanJerry, I need to thank you.
1. You are right. Maybe people are to pessimistic to give credit in a moment of madness. I guess my own thoughts are tainted on this because I supported Bush each and every step along the way until he invaded Iraq. I feel betrayed (rightly or wrongly) that I gave one single person so much support and then they lied to me.
2. I don't agrue on him starting in Afghanistan - I agree with that. Still do. I don't agree on his "Axis of Evil" countries because it is tainted. Bad countries? Without a doubt. Do they stand out amongst the bad countries - no they don't. The definition of why these three do not stick.
I wouldn't go the UN route - Bush never liked the UN and used it to give "legitimacy" for the attack. Remember that the inspectors were not done yet. Not saying the world would have given Bush the right to attack anyone else. But it was a made-up reason and we will continue to suffer because of it. We have to revisit the reason why they attacked Iraq. If it was based on incomplete or wrong information then they should come out and say - sorry, made a mistake but now we have to stick to the situation. But they won't and can't for some reason. By the way, same reason why I hold HillBillary accountable - they will never admit a mistake was made.
3. Not sure about this. Do we have an indepedent study to show how the troops feel? I hear as many people speak out against this President as for him. But I don't want to call that a support or not. We just don't have a clear picture of this or of the previous President.
Dude - thanks for the response though. It was measured and to the point. We don't always have to agree - but it is always good to "talk" to someone who shows respect. I know, I am not always that calm. But I think we have bigger problems in this world than all of us not agreeing. At the very least we all see the US as a place that we have to defend - not only for the sake of the US, but for the sake of the world. There are people out there that will kill either of us without blinking an eye. The good thing? I am sure both of us will stand up to defend the other.
Angry, sorrry it took so
April 1, 2008 - 20:26 ET by JerryAngry, sorrry it took so long to reply.
I totally agree with your last statement. Those of us who love this country, would stand toe to toe to defend her, regardless of political, ethnic, or economic differences.
One last point about the whole Iraq situation. If you look at the big picture, we were mercilessly attacked, and it was imperative that we not only strike back, but go on the offensive. But, how do we, as a nation, engage a nameless, faceless, countryless enemy? The only way, is to identify those countries that harbor and enable terrorists and proceed to clean house. Iraq was the only logical starting point, in my opinion. Since we began, we have deposed a tyrant, killed a boatload of terrorists, and haven't had even a whiff of a terrorist attack within our borders. So in my opinion, it has been a win / win situation.
It's been a pleasure talking with you. Take care and God bless.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Tradition?
March 29, 2008 - 17:31 ET by Del DolemonteThe President has thrown out the First Pitch on Opening Day in DC for many years. Woody Wilson started the practice in 1910.
Bush has in fact missed the past 2 Opening Days. In 2006 he was in the Midwest meeting with senior citizens, and last year he had a full schedule. Some accused him of being afraid of being booed.
Good things happen.
March 29, 2008 - 18:48 ET by ScrapironOne of the good things slated to happen is the death of the Lame Stream Media and watching their employee's join the unemployment line. Going to be hard to place thousands of media nuts with no skills.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
Another thought that
March 29, 2008 - 21:44 ET by motherbeltAnother thought that occurred to me: why is throwing out the first
pitch anywhere such a huge honor that someone has to "deserve" it?
Isn't that exaggerating the importance of sports just a little?
[Moved]
March 31, 2008 - 21:59 ET by Jerry[Moved]