My LTTE--request input before submitting

[teriyaki jones]

Just read a Chicago Tribune editorial (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0606090361jun09,0,4724130.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed) that really got me going. This is a quote from it:

No American president ever again will be as laconic about global terror networks as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were, despite years of Al Qaeda attacks against embassies and other U.S. interests.

Will you please read the following LTTE I've composed and let me know if it sounds like an incoherent rant or if it actually has some merit?

Thanks,
Terry

RE: Al Qaeda's evident decline ...

Your use of the word "laconic" here is really rather telling, as it were. Laconic means "Using or marked by the use of few words; terse or concise." Yes, the current President Bush has been quite vocal about terrorists, invoking and promoting our fear thereof at every turn. But his bloviating does not equal effective action. In fact I am of the firm belief that his words--and actions--have done more to provoke terrorism than quell it. Iraq, for instance, was not a hotbed of terrorism until we invaded and created the lawless and unstable environment that allowed Zarqawi and his ilk to flourish.

What I find particularly objectionable is your taking this opportunity to bash these former presidents while exalting the current occupant of the White House. I'm sure you would have cited only Clinton if you could reasonably have done so. Zarqawi's death may well prove to be little more a convenient distraction from the many ills this country now suffers due to the actions--and inactions--of the Bush administration. As if the ridiculous theater over gay marriage we had to witness earlier this week was not already enough!

[BlooInBloo]

1. Nice! If you want, it's possible to be even MORE pointed...

... saying something like:

=========
Laconic? Ignoring the issue of whether that's the right word, would it count as "laconic" for a President to spend his time pushing for anti-gay Constitutional amendments, while letting our ports go largely unsecured? Would it count as "laconic" for a President to preside over the greatest increase of terrorism incidents in history? Would it count as "laconic" for a President to spy on Americans indiscriminately, while doing nothing about the severe lack of Arabic readers in our intelligence forces?

Clinton specifically tried to take out Osama bin Laden - and *he's* "laconic"? Bush let bin Laden go - and turned him into Osama bin Forgotten - and he's NOT "laconic"? Bush started a war with a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism - and that's NOT "laconic"? You folks are late - Americans aren't buying it any more.
==========

You get the idea - there are obviously a jillion ways to go with this kind of sentiment.

[teriyaki jones]

2. Thanks! All good points . . .

and I certainly could go on and on and on and . . .

I was trying to keep it short and pithy hoping it might actually get them to print it.

[lebkuchen]

3. In your effort to keep it short

I've edited out some words/phrases, which may allow you to use others' ideas.

Thanks for stepping up to the plate. You're needed.

********************

Your use of the word "laconic" is telling. Laconic means "Using or marked by the use of few words; terse or concise." Yes, the current President Bush has been quite vocal about terrorists, invoking and promoting our fear thereof at every turn. But his bloviating does not equal effective action. In fact, I believe that Bush's words--and actions--have done more to provoke terrorism than quell it. Iraq, for instance, was not a hotbed of terrorism until we invaded and created the lawless, an unstable environment and the eventual flourishing of Al Qaeda.

What I find particularly objectionable is your taking this opportunity to bash former presidents while exalting the current occupant of the White House. Zarqawi's death may well prove to be little more a convenient distraction from the many ills this country now suffers due to the actions--and inactions--of the Bush administration. As if the ridiculous theater over gay marriage we had to witness earlier this week was not already enough!

[progdonkey]

4. um, George W. isn't a former president...

Read the quote again. Sounds like the guy is criticizing both our last president and the current one.

[teriyaki jones]

5. Wow--you're right!

But this is by the Chicago Tribune editorial staff, generally not inclined to criticize dear Georgie. I have to go check the print version to see if this is an online typo! Thanks for pointing that out.

[progdonkey]

7. in honestly probably IS a typo...

I mean, the sentence doesn't really make any sense as written: "as Clinton and George W. Bush were"? So it was easy to misread it. The only meaning that would make sense as written is if the author meant "as George W. Bush was before September 11th changed everything!" But that's not what's written.

I hope the author did mean George H.W., since your LTTE is great.

:toast:

[teriyaki jones]

8. I agree that it doesn't make sense as written

My husband left his print copy on the train this morning, so he couldn't confirm how it appeared in print (though he had read the editorial and had the same reaction I did!). Think I'll take the puppies for a walk around the neighborhood and see if anyone has left their Tribune on the driveway.

Thanks for taking the time to look at this, and for your compliment!

[Ilsa]

6. Separate issue, perhaps one for another Dem writer in your family:

Didn't Clinton work with the Yemeni govt to track down the terrorists of the USS Cole bombing? He didn't go bloviating about it; he just took care of the business of bringing them to justice without alot of collateral damage. Please check this, though, because I am not positive about my facts.