Letter to La-La Land
Hey Folks,
Here's what we're up against. Sen. Rick Santorum, the man who thinks gay marriage will lead him to sex with dogs, says "Ahha!! WMD" when he finds some ancient, rusting tins of Hellmann's Mayonnaise. Then the brain-dead Ms. Parker feels the need to come to the aid of her party-line and writes a column. Then the Columbus Dispatch ("Ohio's Greatest Home Newspaper") feels the need to come to the aid of its party-line by printing Ms. Parker's insane rant in support of the Doggy-Boy.
Mr. San(i)tor(i)um's entire notion was so ridiculous on its face, from its first utterance, that one must wonder at the depth of stupidity that allowed such crap to be taken seriously!
Read below, and judge for yourself.
- Uke Man
Dear Ms. Parker,
Below is an excerpt from one of your columns. Below that is an excerpt from one of Trudy Rubin's columns. How would you explain the stark contrast?
Did you not know what Ms. Rubin knew and subsequently published? Or is it your opinion that Ms. Rubin is wrong? Or is it that you are committed to supporting the Right regardless of the facts?
Perhaps there is another reason. If so, please fill me in.
Yours - Tom Harker, Ukulele Man
P.S. I should mention that I had become aware of most of the facts Ms. Rubin eventually presented before I read your column, and I was startled that you took the position you did.
Strange battle brewing over WMD
Monday, June 26, 2006
KATHLEEN PARKER
If you thought Democrats and Republicans were divided over the war in Iraq, you haven’t seen anything yet. The real battle apparently is being waged under the radar among the White House, the intelligence community and Congress.
At the center of the skirmish is a newly unclassified document released
Wednesday that seems to confirm evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, including degraded and possibly lethal chemical agents.
According to the document, coalition forces have recovered about 500 munitions since 2003 that contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agents. Other key points are that these chemicals could be used outside Iraq and that "most likely munitions remaining are sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles."
Which is to say, we don’t know what other stores may remain, or where they are, or who else may know about them.
Most significant, perhaps, is the assertion that while such agents degrade over time, "chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," according to the released document.
In other words, degraded doesn’t necessarily mean "nothing to worry about." Moreover, Wednesday’s document is but a small piece of a much larger document that remains classified and that Republican insiders consider very significant.
The unclassified document was released Wednesday by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., to thin fanfare and much speculation. Why are we hearing about these findings only now? Why is the White House so quiet about them?
Those questions have had congressional offices buzzing the past couple of days, while theories have offered little comfort or clarity.
Competence, not drawdown, is main Iraq question
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
TRUDY RUBIN
The debate in the Senate last week over when to exit Iraq was disgraceful.
Americans deserve an honest airing of the most important foreign-policy issue facing the country. But this congressional circus had little to do with policy and everything to do with election-year politics.
Democrats looked hapless, and many Republicans were flat-out dishonest. The Pinocchio prize for devious discourse went to Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Rick Santorum.
I’m surprised his nose didn’t grow a foot when he claimed a recent Army intelligence report proved Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The report, released under Republican pressure in the midst of the debate, says about 500 munitions have been recovered in Iraq since 2003 that contain degraded mustard or sarin gas.
Mind you, these munitions were picked up in ones and twos and date to Iraq’s war against Iran in the 1980s. There was no operative chemical weapons program after 1991.
Such weapons degrade over time. According to David Kay, the head of the U.S. team that hunted for WMD in 2003-04, these gases by now would be "less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink." Their "poor condition" was affirmed by intelligence officials in a media briefing.
But Santorum insisted this report proved Saddam had WMD that could have reached terrorists. Such silly claims only bolster the evidence that U.S. intelligence is being manipulated for political reasons.
Why would terrorists want old, degraded munitions when within potential reach are much-more tempting targets, such as unsafe Russian nuclear storage dumps? Has Santorum been demanding that more money be appropriated to help Russia secure its nuclear waste?
Here's what we're up against. Sen. Rick Santorum, the man who thinks gay marriage will lead him to sex with dogs, says "Ahha!! WMD" when he finds some ancient, rusting tins of Hellmann's Mayonnaise. Then the brain-dead Ms. Parker feels the need to come to the aid of her party-line and writes a column. Then the Columbus Dispatch ("Ohio's Greatest Home Newspaper") feels the need to come to the aid of its party-line by printing Ms. Parker's insane rant in support of the Doggy-Boy.
Mr. San(i)tor(i)um's entire notion was so ridiculous on its face, from its first utterance, that one must wonder at the depth of stupidity that allowed such crap to be taken seriously!
Read below, and judge for yourself.
- Uke Man
Dear Ms. Parker,
Below is an excerpt from one of your columns. Below that is an excerpt from one of Trudy Rubin's columns. How would you explain the stark contrast?
Did you not know what Ms. Rubin knew and subsequently published? Or is it your opinion that Ms. Rubin is wrong? Or is it that you are committed to supporting the Right regardless of the facts?
Perhaps there is another reason. If so, please fill me in.
Yours - Tom Harker, Ukulele Man
P.S. I should mention that I had become aware of most of the facts Ms. Rubin eventually presented before I read your column, and I was startled that you took the position you did.
Strange battle brewing over WMD
Monday, June 26, 2006
KATHLEEN PARKER
If you thought Democrats and Republicans were divided over the war in Iraq, you haven’t seen anything yet. The real battle apparently is being waged under the radar among the White House, the intelligence community and Congress.
At the center of the skirmish is a newly unclassified document released
Wednesday that seems to confirm evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, including degraded and possibly lethal chemical agents.
According to the document, coalition forces have recovered about 500 munitions since 2003 that contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agents. Other key points are that these chemicals could be used outside Iraq and that "most likely munitions remaining are sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles."
Which is to say, we don’t know what other stores may remain, or where they are, or who else may know about them.
Most significant, perhaps, is the assertion that while such agents degrade over time, "chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," according to the released document.
In other words, degraded doesn’t necessarily mean "nothing to worry about." Moreover, Wednesday’s document is but a small piece of a much larger document that remains classified and that Republican insiders consider very significant.
The unclassified document was released Wednesday by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., to thin fanfare and much speculation. Why are we hearing about these findings only now? Why is the White House so quiet about them?
Those questions have had congressional offices buzzing the past couple of days, while theories have offered little comfort or clarity.
Competence, not drawdown, is main Iraq question
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
TRUDY RUBIN
The debate in the Senate last week over when to exit Iraq was disgraceful.
Americans deserve an honest airing of the most important foreign-policy issue facing the country. But this congressional circus had little to do with policy and everything to do with election-year politics.
Democrats looked hapless, and many Republicans were flat-out dishonest. The Pinocchio prize for devious discourse went to Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Rick Santorum.
I’m surprised his nose didn’t grow a foot when he claimed a recent Army intelligence report proved Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The report, released under Republican pressure in the midst of the debate, says about 500 munitions have been recovered in Iraq since 2003 that contain degraded mustard or sarin gas.
Mind you, these munitions were picked up in ones and twos and date to Iraq’s war against Iran in the 1980s. There was no operative chemical weapons program after 1991.
Such weapons degrade over time. According to David Kay, the head of the U.S. team that hunted for WMD in 2003-04, these gases by now would be "less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink." Their "poor condition" was affirmed by intelligence officials in a media briefing.
But Santorum insisted this report proved Saddam had WMD that could have reached terrorists. Such silly claims only bolster the evidence that U.S. intelligence is being manipulated for political reasons.
Why would terrorists want old, degraded munitions when within potential reach are much-more tempting targets, such as unsafe Russian nuclear storage dumps? Has Santorum been demanding that more money be appropriated to help Russia secure its nuclear waste?
2 Comments:
Hi Tom,
This is great! Parker is brain dead, so she'll never get it. Thanks so much for trying to teach her a few truths. Sondra
Hey Tom,
I bet old Rick would love that dog! Looks good to him, I imagine. You finally did it to him. Sondra
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home