Letters, 8/22: Thomas goes over edge

 23 comment(s)  
 E-mail Story
 Print Story
  Share

 digg it!
 Facebook
 del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Fark It
Reddit

Text Size: 

Tools Sponsor

Cal Thomas disgusts me on a regular basis, but not usually enough for me to have to write in to my newspaper about. In his Aug. 11 column, “Lieberman a victim of Democrats’ Taliban wing,” he pushed me over the edge.

The column is about the recent loss of Joe Lieberman to newcomer Ned Lamont by way of the “Taliban Democrats” hijacking the party. In it he claims that Lieberman was voted out of office for the fact that he supported “the effort to defeat the insurgent-terrorists in Iraq.” Wrong. Very, very, wrong.

First of all, that was not why we originally went into Iraq and that was not what Lieberman voted for and has continuously supported. Lieberman was voted out of office by a majority of Democratic voters (not a fringe extreme) for his continuous support of a misguided, failing effort in Iraq that was originally voted for as a way to rid Iraq of Saddam and his (nonexistent) WMDs, and also for his constant siding with President Bush on nearly every policy placed before him.

Even more disgusting than that gross error and falsehood is Thomas’ claim that “as a Jew, Lieberman is particularly sensitive to those who have targeted the Jewish people for extinction.”

The true purpose of this statement is to insinuate that the “Taliban Wing” of the Democratic Party, or simply the Democratic Party, voted him out due to the fact that he is Jewish. It makes me sick that Cal Thomas would so underhandedly imply anti-Semitism is to blame for Lieberman’s ouster.

The truth of the matter is that there is no extreme wing trying to take over politics. Lefty bloggers didn’t kick Joe out. The democratic process kicked Joe out of office for the fact that a majority of Americans are tired of this unending war, they’re tired of blind support for a blind administration.

Cal Thomas should be ashamed at his underhanded writing and disgusting name-calling, and if he were a journalist, maybe look into reality before making his claims.

Ryan Patrick, Lincoln

‘Dilbert’ caused offense

I was very disappointed by the recent “Dilbert” cartoons in which a man who spews nonsense is referred to as mildly retarded. As the sibling of someone who is mildly retarded, I find this to be totally inappropriate, offensive and inaccurate. I am saddened and sickened by it.

I know a while back the Journal Star did not print another cartoon because they felt it would be offensive to war veterans/families. It’s too bad you could not have shown this sensitivity at these recent cartoons.

I have already e-mailed the creator of the cartoons but also hold the Journal Star responsible for not showing sense and dealing with this in a better way. I hope this letter will at least make you think. 

Jenny Weisser, Lincoln

I need a new tinfoil hat

Much to my pleasure, I sat down to read the Aug. 14 Leon Satterfield column on all the bad news for Bush. (Note to all columnists: The term is “Bush,” not President Bush, or even Mr. Bush. This helps to show your true feelings.)

Anyway, I was really getting into Mr. Satterfield’s (notice the “Mr.,” a term of respect) irrefutable logic when my darned cat jumped down from her perch, knocking off my tinfoil hat and tearing a hole in it. Aagggh!! I was overwhelmed by the force of the conservative reasoning leaking through.

I immediately jumped for my trusty computer and called up the Democratic National Committee Web site, in order to order a replacement supply of hats. Unfortunately, I learned that due to unprecedented demand (mostly in Connecticut), a replacement would not be available.

I would sure appreciate it if Mr. (still a form of respect, you will notice) Satterfield would advise the institution he associates with, and see if they can furnish replacements.

Terry L. Vonderschmidt, Beatrice

Cheney should pay way

I read by the morning papers that Vice President Dick Cheney may be here in Nebraska soon.

I’m sure Lincoln will be the recipient of a number of big names coming to campaign for candidates for office this fall. It is not too late for the City Council to issue a notice that any costs to the city of Lincoln for security or other reasons are to be borne by the political campaign benefiting from the appearance. This would be the same for Republican or Democrat.

We all remember the city being stiffed some $31,900 in 2004 by the Jeff Fortenberry campaign. Let’s not let starshine lead us down the primrose path again.

Jo Naber, Lincoln

Can U.S. restore honor?

Thank you for having the courage to run the recent Associated Press article about the possibility that elements of our government were involved in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 (“9/11 conspiracy theorists gain momentum,” Aug. 7).

This should not be regarded as lunatic fringe. According to an Aug. 2004 Zogby poll, half the people in New York City believed already that there was complicity by federal officials, and, according to an August Scripps-Howard poll, one-third of the people in this country are ready to admit the possibility.

We, the people, need to offer amnesty in advance to those implicated if they have the humility and grace to come forward — like South Africa’s “truth and reconciliation.” And that honesty and apology and amnesty might just restore our country’s honor and decrease the violence.

Len Schropfer, Milligan

Conservatives in control

How does Pete Ricketts view the common Nebraskan? As an ignorant hillbilly. I hope individuals from other states have not seen or heard of Ricketts’ campaign ads.

Ricketts states that there needs to be conservative change in the Clinton-Kennedy controlled Senate. What is he talking about? The Senate has been controlled by conservatives for most of a decade, and Ted Kennedy holds little power in the Senate. Just look what happened to his bill to increase minimum wage.

Why is Ricketts making this an issue anyway? Nebraska already has a conservative senator in Washington, and it isn’t Chuck Hagel.          

Dustin Wardyn, Unadilla