Letters to the Editor

Pundit’s role

May 25, 2010


To the editor:

What role do pundits play in provoking war? (“Diplomatic defiance marks U.S. retreat,” Journal-World, May 21). Reading Mr. Krauthammer’s recent screed at what he perceives as the Obama administration’s policy of weakness and appeasement regarding Iran, two thoughts came to mind.

1) Shouldn’t these paid hacks be held accountable for poor advice in the past? To refresh your memory, Mr. K. was one of the chief cheerleaders for invading Iraq, and we all know how well that little venture has turned out. 2) When was the last time this well-heeled expert examined the nation’s reserves? This country simply can no longer afford to play the global policeman.

Staggering under a crushing debt, bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, and faced with an ever-crumbling infrastructure, our political leaders in Washington are not so much in retreat as they are merely facing reality. Instead of fulminating at foreign dragons, Mr. Krauthammer ought to spend more time trying to repair his own castle.

Ray Finch,



Flap Doodle 8 years ago

We can start fixing our castle by firing the jester currently in residence at 1600 Penn. Ave.

Maddy Griffin 8 years ago

How quickly you forget. The"rogue Obama Regime" didn't get us into this mess.And the hatred for Bush is far from hysterical. But I've got to give it to you Nancy-Tom, you are nothing but consistent.

Paul R Getto 8 years ago

If, when we go to war, the children and grandchildren of those who support it are required to go first, there might be a more tempered debate. Even better, let the old men who vote to slaughter others in the name of their ideology lead the first charge into the "Valley of Death." This tradition, once established, should encourage more diplomacy.

somedude20 8 years ago

Trust me Tom if that crooked vulture Bush and his cast of war criminals did not get inpeached Obama won't. I know you would bring him up on charges of being black but remember buddy, he is half white too

Brent Garner 8 years ago

Mr. Shewmon, As much as I would like to see the Usurper removed from office, there will be no impeachment or removal of him by Congress. Simple fact. It takes 67 senators voting in the affirmative to convict and thus remove a sitting president. The only time the Senate even came close was with President Andrew Johnson--(Lincoln's VP), and that effort failed by 1 vote. The attempt versus Clinton was even more lopsided. Why? When push comes to shove, politics will trump justice. It is that simple.

Abdu Omar 8 years ago

Obviously there is a lack of ability to read around here. Obama isn't perfect, but he didn't take us off to war against anyone and his healthcare plan is workable if YOU READ IT!! the public is swayed by those "pundits" and most of them are fighting for their own cause, what ever it may be. Look first at facts, then revisit them. Then make your decision. Just because you are conservative or liberal, there is truth somewhere, find it!

Flap Doodle 8 years ago

As Nixon could have told them, it’s not the crime, but the cover-up that can do you in. “The White House attempted to push back against allegations that Barack Obama or his staff attempted to bribe Joe Sestak into withdrawing from the Democratic Senate primary by offering him a job, but they may be creating bigger headaches with their defense. Axelrod tells CNN’s John King that there is “no evidence” that the bribe attempt ever happened, even while he acknowledges that it would have been “a serious breach of the law.” In order to believe that there is “no evidence,” though, one has to discount the repeated direct testimony of Sestak himself (via The Daily Caller):… Senior adviser to the president David Axelrod said Monday evening that there is “no evidence” that White House officials tried to keep a Democratic congressman from entering the Pennsylvania Senate race by offering him a high-ranking government job. “When the allegations were made, they were looked into. And there was no evidence of such a thing,” Axelrod said on CNN’s “John King USA.” Axelrod acknowledged that if White House officials dangled a job in front of Rep. Joe Sestak’s face to keep him away from challenging incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter, that would “constitute a serious breach of the law.” Axelrod also acknowledged that there were “conversations” involving White House officials and Sestak, but said that those had been “looked at” by White House lawyers and “their conclusion was that it was perfect — the conversations were perfectly appropriate.” Witness testimony does qualify as evidence, however, and Sestak has insisted on multiple occasions that the bribe attempt happened. Either Sestak is lying, or Sestak is telling the truth. If it’s the latter, then someone in the Obama administration committed a felony, and perhaps more than one, by Axelrod’s own admission. If it didn’t happen, then Joe Sestak is lying. In order to defend itself, the White House has been put in the position of having to call its party’s nominee for the US Senate a liar. A Congressional investigation could settle the matter. Not surprisingly, Democrats don’t seem terribly interested in conducting one, although Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has demanded a probe to discover whether the “most transparent administration in history” tried to illegally manipulate an election. Democrats know that they have no good outcomes from such a probe, but don’t expect such hesitation from Republicans if they take back control of either chamber in the midterms.” http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/25/axelrod-no-evidence-that-sestak-is-telling-the-truth/

Commenting has been disabled for this item.