Good LTE in the Star Tribune:
Black, Republicans playing word games
Published: October 09, 2006
Eric Black's Oct. 6 article regarding Patty Wetterling's political ad on the Mark Foley scandal serves only to parse the word "coverup."
The fact is that the Republican leadership knew of the existence of these e-mails for at least a year and did not discipline Rep. Foley.
Nonfeasance (dereliction of duty) is a poor turn of phrase for such an act, and Black does a disservice to the public by calling the event anything less than hiding information from the people to protect the power of one of their own.
And that, Mr. Black, is a coverup, whether the Republicans wish to call it one or not.
BRAD BAGLEY, ST. PAUL
On a similar note, from another good post by Eric Zaetsch at DB...
The admission of the factual accuracy is an admission of circumstances most people would call a coverup. Black was splitting hairs when he applied a standard of "confession" as opposed to admitting actions which constitute a coverup. Actions speak louder than words, and when undisputed, actions can show words to be self-servingly false; as with Hastert and Reynolds.
...and a link to a Media Matters piece which lays out the evidence for a cover-up.
To paraphrase a famous comment by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart:
"I can't define 'cover-up,' but I know it when I see it."
Most Americans seem to take this view. 52% of Americans believe there was a cover-up with regards to the Foley matter.
And on another front, 53% of Americans "believe that the Bush administration purposely misled the public about evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to build support for the U.S.- led invasion to oust Saddam Hussein."
It would appear that the Republicans have a cover-up problem on their hands.
Is this really the time for semantics?