The Blog

Top 10 Letters

NFL Football, college football, and other important stuff, like democracy.

11:00 PM, Dec 14, 2004
Widget tooltip
Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

ASIDE FROM the irrelevant invocation of Hunter's son, Tom Donnelly's argument seems to be the same as that offered by other opponents of intelligence reform. For all I know, he may be right. What is truly interesting is Donnelly's explicit assumption that the President's support for the bill is a charade (less politely, a lie) and Rumsfeld is playing along with the gag. We see that Hastert supports Hunter "quietly," i.e. his oft stated support for the bill is also a lie. This is all necessary, you imply, because of the imperial Senate, and the 9/11 families. But I thought Bush had a mandate; is this how he and the Republicans plan to govern, by pretending they are for popular bills instead of confronting the opposition and explaining their position? Hunter and Sensenbrenner have taken a hypocritical but understandable position--they are defending their turf, their power, and their perks.



TOM DONNELLY has provided us with a great, and much needed, article. Aside from some moderately good writing in their final report, the 9/11 Commission is just a partisan, preening nothing. The very idea of Richard Ben-Veniste writing national policy is absurd! What we really need are laws governing the behavior of committee members after they conclude their official business.

--John Reed