Great LTEs in the Twin Cities papers today

I'll start with a few from the hometown rag:
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/editorial/letters/6267255.htm

<snip>
Many Americans falsely believe Iraq was tied to al--Qaida terrorists and that U.S. troops have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (story, June 22). One reason for this was a conservative, pro-war bias in the media prior to and during the war in Iraq.

For eight years, America's right-wing fanatics relentlessly dogged President Clinton and then impeached him for lying about a sexual affair. That same right wing doesn't care that the American people were lied to and flimflammed into war by President Bush and his warmongers who manipulated intelligence reports on Iraq.

Right-wing propagandists must be jubilant. Their fear mongering has undermined our democratic government. They've convinced many that the media has a liberal bias, tax breaks for the rich mean wealth for all, federal deficits are beneficial, wars can be fought and government services provided for a pittance, public schools are evil, labor unions are un-American, big business is our savior, flag-waving covers most sins and ignorance is bliss.

MIKE KLUZNIK

Mendota Heights

...

The neo-con apologists are coming out of the woodwork to explain our inability to find weapons of mass destruction, and to redirect our attention away from those responsible. They are the magicians skillfully diverting our eyes (Syria! Iran! "Road map to peace"!), but let's not shift our gaze.

If our intelligence was strong enough to merit invasion, it would have produced real results by now.

Unless our intelligence agencies have failed us entirely (rather than just skewing information to get Vice President Dick Cheney off their backs), the Bush administration has deceived the American people into supporting a pre-emptive strike against a non-aggressor.

That they deceived us? Unfortunately predictable. That many of us believed them? Understandable. That they sent our men and women of arms to die under false pretense? Criminal.

JOEL ROGNESS

Roseville

...

SPREAD THE RISK

Iraq is in a shambles, and hardly a day goes by without the death or injury of American or British soldiers or journalists.

I suggest the president, vice president, members of the Cabinet and those members of Congress who supported the war take turns at patrolling the streets of Baghdad.

Why should only the lowly enlisted men and women risk their lives?

EUGENE MATTERS

St. Paul
</snip>

And not to be outdone, let's see what the sister on the other side of the river has to say:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/3979385.html

<snip>
Worthy of the front page

Buried on page A11 of Tuesday's Star Tribune was a small two-paragraph story that that stated "the White House acknowledged for the first time . . . that President Bush relied on incomplete and perhaps inaccurate information . . . when he declared in his State of the Union address that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase uranium from Africa."

It is disturbing that the White House staff was so incompetent that they relied on incomplete information, but even more disturbing is the fact that our intelligence services are so deficient that they would provide the president inaccurate information.

But it is no less disturbing that the Star Tribune did not rate this information as being worthy of the front page! After all, the president used this information as justification for launching a preemptive war -- and now the administration is saying it was wrong.

Jack Uldrich, Minneapolis;chairman, Independence Party.



Just wondering why the article in Tuesday's Star Tribune, revealing that President Bush cited inaccurate information about Iraq's nuclear weapons program in his 2003 State of the Union address, was buried on page A11.

Since this was one of the main arguments for drawing us into war, one would think this story might qualify as front-page news. Remember how much press President Bill Clinton got over lying about his sex life?

James Dooley, Apple Valley.

Bush's 'bold' stand

I am impressed that our president made such a bold statement on slavery, calling it a sin and a crime and all (Star Tribune, July 9).

He has been an inspiration, and has empowered me to make the following equally bold statement: "I am against what happened on 9/11, generally speaking."

John Egelkrout, Fridley.

They're stealing our spouses

Thank you for printing the July 9 commentary by Jeff Jacoby. I have been wondering for weeks, "What is the 'gay agenda'?" Now I get it! They are out to steal our spouses! To ruin traditional family life!

I have a dear friend who is gay and has been in my home, at my table, out to movies, dinners, markets and occasionally the Dairy Queen with my husband and me. Last night the two of them stood side by side at our kitchen sink. But that won't happen again.

I will be more vigilant, second-guessing every look that passes between them, every invitation to spend time together.

Kathy Jackson, Minneapolis.
</snip>

Big tip o' the hat to all of these great Letter writers! Keep up the good work!
DUers, I hope you've all been taking notes!

:kick:

I hadn't had a chance to read my paper yet today.

For those of you not familiar with the Strib, the last letter above (regarding Gays) refers to a commentary published in the July 9. Here's a snip:

http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/3977253.html

<snip>
Ah, but to say that is to run smack into what has become a familiar taunt: How does my committed gay relationship threaten your marriage? Puh-leez! I defy you to produce a shred of evidence that marriage for gays will harm anybody else.

Well, here's a shred of evidence: The Boston Globe reports that in the three years since Vermont extended near-marriage status to same-sex civil unions, nearly 5,700 gay and lesbian couples have registered their relationship. Of those couples, close to 40 percent, or more than 2,000, include at least one partner who used to be married.

Just a shred -- but a jarring one. Of course, it doesn't mean that Vermont's civil union law broke up 2,000 straight couples. It does mean that where there used to be 2,000 traditional marriages, there are now 2,000 ruptured ones -- and 2,000 gay or lesbian unions in their place.

Were some of those marriages doomed from the outset? Probably. But it's also probable that some of them weren't. In another time or another state, some of those marriages might have worked out. The old stigmas, the universal standards that were so important to family stability, might have given them a fighting chance. Without them, they were left exposed and vulnerable.
<end snip>

Apparently the writer assumes that no married Gay or Lesbian even considered divorce until the civil union law was passed.

:hi: I have been offline for ages. Glad to see you. We should plan another get together soon. Take care.

Why is someone from the friggin Independence Party writing in to call B*sh to that mat about WMD lies, but nary a peep from anybody would have cause to put DFL after their name?

When will the DFL leadership get its spine back?

Thanks for the post, NS. Perhaps Minnesota isn't the bastion of Conservatism that Pawlenty and his minions would lead us to believe. WhooooHoooo. :hi:

I wonder if this will get the bald, fat, impotent, jobless folks over at the "Patriot" riled up? ;-)

for every sane person they publish - so it's hard to tell what these represent.
But it is interesting to note that a lot of these progressive letter writers are from the suburbs. Maybe the TC burbs aren't quite as Right Wing as CorPravda would have us believe.