In defense of Bernie’s attacks on Hillary
To the Editor:
Helter Skelter Bernie Indeed! Reading Steven Sanders’ “Helter Skelter Bernie” (T&V, May 25) was absolutely galling.
Mr. Sanders posed a number of hypotheses concerning the senator’s motivation for contesting the former first lady, nominee contender, secretary of state, and nominee contender (again) at this late date in the nomination fight. Of course none of Mr. Sanders’ musings are really hypotheses. I mean, how the devil does one go about demonstrating that Bernie Sanders continues to battle Mrs. Clinton because he wants The Donald as president because that, according to Mr. Steven Sanders, is what Senator Sanders believes will bring about so much hurt as to cause the very revolution that he, the senator, now wants but cannot secure with his own talents?
Nowhere in his voyage of fantasy does Mr. Sanders entertain the notion that Senator Sanders, though well-behind Mrs. Clinton, is in the race because of ethical differences between the two. So let’s bring out one difference that has been there all along. It is one that Mr. Trump is right about and will likely use; quote, “They lied!”
Indeed, they did, and they still do. They lied when they claimed that “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction!” Mrs. Clinton now tells the rest of us, “If I knew then what I know now, I would not have voted to invade Iraq.” She was, I gather, just a bit short on information.
Now let’s take a look at Mrs. Clinton’s feign of ignorance. Recall who she was when the vote to invade Iraq was taken and who she had been when Bill Clinton was president, then, hold on to those memories, recall the following facts:
Gary Powers’ U2 is shot down photographing the Soviet Union on May 1, 1960. Though President Eisenhower posted an initial denial of the spying charge, the wrecked spy plane and the disheveled Mr. Powers were put on display for the world to see.
On the evening of October 22, 1962, President Kennedy presented to the nation U2 spy-plane pictorial evidence of the ground in Cuba. Mr. Kennedy pointed to shadows and images and identified objects as missile transports, troop barracks tanks, and equipment.
In the following forty years, we and the Russians developed satellite capacity to picture every spot of ground in each other’s country. As Walter Cronkite noted with some exaggeration: from space, “we could identify a pack of cigarettes in a man’s shirt.” Indeed, we had the ability to place a satellite, day or night, over any spot of ground we chose.
In the face of our own technological achievements, Mr. Bush and his administration asserted that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to launch a nuclear missile at the United States. What evidence did Mr. Bush present to the congress and the American people? In a word: their word, but not a single piece of photographic evidence. Not one picture. Not one bit of evidence from space, not even one bit of the by-then more primitive U2 evidence. Nothing! We went to war on the basis of nothing real.
Shall we say that Mrs. Clinton, a previous first lady, a United States senator, the secretary of state, was clueless about our technology? Or, shall we say, she knew there was no evidence, but voted to invade Iraq? What are we to do with one with her credentials who now says to us, “If I knew then what I know now, I would not have voted to invade Iraq?”
Pick one or the other: utter ignorance of American history, or, knew and (yet) voted for war.
Even if we ignore that Mrs. Clinton would promote positioning NATO at the very western border of Russia (akin to Russia posting allies in Mexico), even if we ignore her compliance in the use of drones; even if we ignore her motherly “I know . . . I know . . . but you can’t have it” addressing a crowd of seniors years ago about universal single payer; even if we ignore her alliances with those who pay no taxes; even if we ignore her failure to demand that Israel stop building in the West Bank; even if we ignore what she and others have set afoot in the Middle East for generations to come; even if we ignore, does that mean Bernie Sanders should ignore?
Rather than thanking the guy, it seems we are committed to demanding that the Senator not break our bubble. After all, hasn’t it been given out to us that it is time for a woman president!
John Giannone, ST
Wrong about candidate support and Trump
To the Editor: Two things:
The first is regarding the letter our Part C District Leaders wrote as to solicit needed Democratic nomination petition signatures (“Voter signatures needed ahead of primary,” letter, T&V, June 9). The second paragraph reads:
“If you are asked to sign as a Democrat, please do so. Your signature… does not mean that you are supporting or voting for this person at the polls.”
Excuse me, but you’re supporting their effort to get on the ballot. I hope this helps for those who have not, but still have time to sign them on. I signed and, having done so, fulfilled my duty as a registered Democrat. Accordingly, I ask that you will write my name in instead of Hon. Brad Hoylman for New York State Senator.
The second is that Steve Sanders needs to pay up. All he did was slam Donald Trump again and again, explaining why Trump would never get the nomination. Well, I saw that Trump could win it. Steve disputed me and kept swinging at Trump. Yet none of his hits made it past the pitching rubber while I hit it out of the park.
So I think that Sanders should send me what Creator paid across the board to win the Belmont: $58.80. And, he should take his cue from a horse that did exceptionally well at the Derby and Preakness but failed in New York: Real Quiet.
Billy Sternberg, ST
If the bus stop ain’t broke…
Re: Story, “MTA says Stuy Town bus stop won’t be removed,” T&V, June 9
Congratulations to all who fought to keep this important bus stop on 20th Street and thanks to T&V for publicizing the issue.
What seems absurd is why the MTA AND Daniel Garodnick subsequently still agreed to move the westbound M23 stops several hundred feet east from their current location, which has perfectly served the neighborhood for over sixty years! The expense, inconvenience and all costs should be shared with the public since these physical moves serve no purpose at all. The flimsy reasons offered by the MTA is laughable!
Was this simply a deal by a city agency and a politician? But, of course.
Michele A. Masucci, ST