LEAHY MUELLER
Re: The Prowler’s J.
Edgar Mueller:
I think I know why FBI director Robert Mueller didn’t want the
Senate Judiciary Committee to have a written transcript of his or
FBI agents’ testimony.
Many may have forgotten — but not if they’ve been listening to
Rush Limbaugh in recent months — that Sen. Patrick Leahy, now
Judiciary’s chairman, was kicked off the Intelligence Committee
years ago after leaking classified information.
If I were Mueller and had to put up with Leahy’s
self-righteousness, I, too, just might want to offer the chairman a
bit of a reminder of that humiliation…
— Kevin M. McGehee
Coweta County, GA
THE HENTOFF EXCEPTION
Re: Sean Higgins’ When
Liberals Could Oppose Abortion:
I enjoyed Sean Higgins’s article on Dennis Kucinich, as excerpted
in today’s Washington Times. I noticed, however, that Mr.
Higgins names Nat Hentoff as among the small and dwindling group of
pro-life liberals on the scene today, and asserts that Hentoff and
the others “aren’t very vocal about” their pro-life position. As
applied to Mr. Hentoff, I believe that statement is not correct. I
think if Mr. Higgins looked further into this, he’d find that
Hentoff, in his Washington Times op-ed columns, has
written many thoughtful pro-life pieces. So, I’d encourage Mr.
Higgins to reassess the “aren’t very vocal” assertion as applied to
Mr. Hentoff. (No argument about the statement’s applicability to
Kucinich, David Bonior, or Mark Shields.) Again, the article was
otherwise very insightful and interesting, as is your website
generally.
— Roger Pincus
Sean Higgins replies: The point I was
trying to make was that pro-life liberals in general do
not speak out on the subject of abortion. I didn’t mean to suggest
that Mr. Hentoff — a journalist I have long admired — is afraid
to speak out on this matter. My article probably should have made
this clearer. My apologies to Mr. Hentoff.
In my defense, I did note that Mr. Hentoff had written about the
subject in a recent column.
KASHMIR EXCHANGE
Jed Babbin says in his article Order of Battle in
Kashmir on 5/28/02 the following:
“However, because the people of J & K are mostly Muslim and
India is predominantly Hindu, Mountbatten provided for a plebiscite
to be held to determine whether the Kashmiris wanted to be part of
India or of Pakistan. India has refused to allow the vote, and it
and Pakistan have already gone to war twice over who owns
Kashmir.”
This is historically and factually wrong. The Princely state of
Jammu and Kashmir had a Hindu King who sign the articles of
Accession with India and Lord Mountbatten officially in his
capacity as the last Viceroy of India accepted this. This was how
all the previously independent states ruled by various Kings and
Princes agreed to the accession with the new Indian nation. It was
only when the Pakistani army attacked the state of Jammu and
Kashmir and occupied parts of Jammu and Kashmir that the United
Nations passed a resolution which called for the plebiscite after
the Pakistani army withdrew from the occupied J&K .
I expect more accuracy from Jed Babbin whom I listen to when he
comes on Lee Rodgers’ show on KSFO and enjoy his analysis.
— Harish Chinai
Jed Babbin replies: My thanks to Mr.
Chinai for his kind words, but I don’t believe he’s correct. Indeed
there was a Hindu maharajah who ruled mostly Muslim Kashmir. The
minority population was — and still is — Hindu or Buddhist. The
“accession” to India was never completed. Not even the U.N. accepts
it. In fact, Lord Mountbatten made accession to India contingent on
the plebiscite. At that point, the Kashmiri maharajah asked for
Indian troops in the same way the puppet Afghan regime asked for
Soviet troops in 1979, and with much the same result. Indian troops
came in, and then so did Pakistani troops. The first Kashmir war
ended like the other two: in a bloody stalemate. Which is where
this one is likely to go, unless someone does something
extraordinarily stupid, and a bloody stalemate turns into history’s
first nuclear exchange.
MILITARY RETREAT
Re: Bill Harrison’s Decoration
Day:
I am a 20-year retired military man and veteran of Korea and
Vietnam. I am also a Memorial Day drop-out. I retired from the
military 30 years ago and have since grown tired of seeing the
endless parade of old men doddering about in their ancient uniforms
every Memorial Day, as if their military experience was the sum
total of their lives. The day I retired, I threw my combat boots to
the top of the admin building where I received my discharge, and
drove home in my GI socks. The uniforms later went to Goodwill and
the dumpster, and I started a new life.
I pay respect to the colors when they pass by and my heart
swells with pride at having once been a part of a truly great
military. But being in the military doesn’t define me and it wasn’t
the most important thing in my life.
Politicians and the media are fond of using the term, “those who
gave their lives” especially when holding forth on Memorial Day.
That term sickens me. Those lives weren’t “given”, they were taken
forcibly. Ripped away loudly and profanely and certainly not
considered a “gift” by the takers.
— Sid Cowan
Santa Rosa, CA
LIVE FOR NEW YORK
Re: Jackie Mason & Raoul Felder’s Bye,
Baby, Goodbye:
Jackie Mason is in my top ten comedians of the century. Thy
finger doth not offend me. I have never heard of Raoul Felder. If I
see his name at the head of a column, I guarantee I will read
it.
— unsigned
ISN’T IT PEDANTIC
Re: Enemy Central’s Imperial
Bush:
Sure, it’s pedantic, but:
Heidegger never taught at Heidelberg, but rather in Freiburg im
Breisgau.
But it would have been vastly better if Gore the Bore had indeed
studied Hegel in Heidelberg whilst hearing Hesse!
:-)
— John
