A little help with a LTTE

[Ediacara]

This is a rebuttal to a letter published today responding to my intial letter calling for Rove to get the boot.

Chuck Bugger's letter:
------------------
In response to Peter B_______'s letter on July 15, "Bush should make good on promise to fire Rove," just one question: Did you read what you wrote? First you blew the "talking points" by quoting the president correctly. You were supposed to ignore the part about "If the person broke the law, the person will be taken care of." Because according to the authors of the law, "no law was broken."

In reality what Karl Rove did was to try to stop a reporter from making a big blunder when he was about to report that the vice-president sent Joe Wilson to investigate the "yellow cake" matter. Dick Cheney didn't even know who Joe Wilson was. The reporter called Karl Rove about a completely different story and at the last minute wanted verification that as Joe Wilson reported he was sent to Iraq by Cheney. Karl said he probably should not go down that road because as he understood it Joe Wilson's wife had recommended him for that mission. He never mentioned her name. In fact, her role as an operative has never been established, she hadn't been undercover for at least five years and she was on U.S. soil.

I know you guys on the left just shot yourself in the foot again in your desperate attempt to foil President Bush, but in reality it was Joe Wilson who lied. In fact, he never even wrote this "yellow cake report" he said Cheney sent him to investigate.

Better luck with trashing the next Supreme Court nominee.
--------------------

My response so far:

--------------------
The publication of Chuck Bugger’s letter (Rove critic should get the story straight before calling for heads, 18 July 2005) in response to my own calling on President Bush to fire advisor Karl Rove is ironic for two reasons. The first reason I find his letter ironic is that Mr. Bugger accuses me of using Democratic Party talking points, yet ironically the remainder of Mr. Bugger’s letter is an amalgamation of slightly modified talking points issued by Republican Party chairman Ken Mehlman on 12 July 2005, and available on the Republican Party’s website. The second reason I find his letter ironic is that on the very same day Mr. Bugger’s letter was published “exonerating” Mr. Rove, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Time Magazine ironically published stories further implicating not only Mr. Rove, but Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff Lewis Libby as well.

So much for getting the story straight.
--------------------

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

[AllegroRondo]

1. Simple, to the point, I like it.

one minor edit I would make - remove the word "ironically" after Time Magazine in the last sentance, you already used the word "ironic" earlier in the same sentance.

[Radio_Lady]

2. Yeah, that's the only fiddling I'd do with it today --

go get 'em, Dino Boy.

(Just remember that newspapers are flooded with LTTEs every day, and they may not print your rebuttal to his rebuttal.)

[smartvoter]

3. I think you did great. You can add a line about the fact that

Bush is shifting on his statement from involved to if committed a crime, and cite the articles out there on it such as:

President Bush said Monday that if anyone on his staff committed a crime in the CIA-leak case, that person will "no longer work in my administration." His statement represented a shift from a previous comment, when he said that he would fire anyone shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of a CIA officer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680/

So you could say that, as is widely reported in the media, Bush has shifted from his original position of firing anyone involved in leaking Plames identity to having committed a crime. There is no moral high ground to be found in backtracking from a commitment to the public.

Or something of that sort. Your response is great, but I wouldn't let him stick you with an erroneous label of inaccuracy. You were right -- he is not.