During the Monica Lewinsky scandal scientists found evidence of possible microbes on meteor rocks retrieved from Mars. That's right, folks.
Extraterrestrial life may exist, but how can Americans care about such pertinent info when the news is so shocked that even rich white guys like a blow job now and then?
When Johnny Cash died all eyes were on the tombstone-gray headlines of John Ritter’s passing. Now that James Brown made his exit, the country couldn't stop discussing the predictable demise of Anna Nicole Smith. I swear, Jesus himself could return from the grave in a Trans Am driven by Burt Reynolds and we'd all be wondering if there's a new sandwich at Subway.
Living in a world where so many of us are stupid spelled with a Z, I believe the media has a responsibility to be more than the plural for mediocre. While I can't say every article in the Alibi blows me away, I can say this: Thank you for not telling me whether or not Britney Lohan Paris Spears has her underwear on today.
Tony Santiago Albuquerque
[RE: The Real Side, “How Many Divisions has the Veep?” July 19-25] I read Jim Scarantino's article with great interest, hoping to be coddled with indisputable logic as to why I should cease to admire the vice president, and open to being sold on the legitimacy of proposed impeachment proceedings against him.
Cheney has not seized powers of the Oval Office by nefarious means. Rather, he was selected by President Bush as his running mate and right-hand man precisely so that Bush could avail himself of Cheney's experience and expertise, especially regarding the formation and implementation of foreign policy. If Cheney is conducting business in these areas, it is at the direction of President Bush, whose right to delegate such matters is most assuredly constitutional.
Scarantino's sarcastic approach to "deficit-spawning Bush tax-cuts for the ultra rich" struck me as ad hominem and disingenuous. The very phrase is loaded with innuendo. If Cheney was indeed the moving force behind these tax cuts, it would have been fairer to address whether they might have actually contributed to our current state of economic prosperity, reflected in continued low unemployment and new highs in the stock market.
Cheney has not been given everything we had to throw against international terrorism. From the outset, we've been fighting this war with one hand tied behind our backs. Considering that we bend over backwards to avoid civilian casualties while engaging in public works and the building of infrastructure to win hearts and minds (rather than single-mindedly conquering the populace and territory with efficient military impunity), it's truly remarkable we've made the progress we have to date under the circumstances.
Now let's address the three articles of impeachment proposed by Kucinich:
Count One: The threat of Iraqi WMDs was a legitimate concern raised for public discourse rather than a fabrication as a pretext for war. Saddam Hussein denied Iraq had them. ... Had Saddam simply opened his country to U.N. Inspections unimpeded, he would probably still be alive and in power today. Scarantino and Kucinich would have you believe Cheney concocted the whole scenario by his lonesome when, in fact, Saddam miscalculated our resolve and brought the war on himself. Few people seem to remember any of this, probably because of the way we marginalized Saddam by virtually ignoring him as his final days wound down.
Count Two: The link between al-Qaeda and Saddam has always been an inferential one. I know of no instance where any serious member of the Bush administration cited any concrete link between the two, and would love to be shown one. Instead, as with the possibility of WMDs, the notion was bandied about so that we could take practical measures to forestall such an occurrence, and the war in Iraq was one way of dealing with it. ... I see nothing actionable there.
Count Three: Most absurd of all. Threatening war to avoid war enhances national security, but only if you back it up from time to time. Grenada, the Falklands, Panama and Iraq (twice) are several such instances where we picked our spots to make the statement that you'd better consider the possibilities carefully if the U.S. goes so far as to threaten you with our military. Using this strategy, we have thus far avoided conflicts with China (over Taiwan), the USSR (Cold War), North Korea (present day) and Iran (since the fall of the Shah), all much bigger fish we would have a harder time defeating. Therefore, I submit that the truly treasonous among us are those who sell our national security short by declaring that threats of war are somehow illegal—those who seek to hamstring our leaders with touchy-feely niceties even as tin-horn crackpots the world over applaud our national political neuroses.
If Cheney is as despised even among Republicans as Scarantino asserts, it is only because of the cumulative effect of the hatchet job the liberal media has done on him over many years. Looking past that, I see only a man of high integrity, vast experience, fervent beliefs and staunch determination, possessed of a shrewd analytical capability and cool comportment under pressure. He has impressed me favorably with his performance in prior presidential debates, and in interviews in the aftermath of the notorious shooting of his friend and hunting crony. He is precisely the kind of intransigent bulldog I want protecting my/our national interest by staring down the crazies of the international community the way he does. I still like him, in spite of Scarantino's admonitions to the contrary.
Brian K. Mitchell Santa Fe
Letters should be sent with the writer’s name, address and daytime phone number via e-mail to email@example.com. They can also be faxed to (505) 256-9651. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium; we regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter.