Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To the Editor, Lowell Sun: Someone should tell Dr. Susan Clark-Cook to take her medications—and then instruct her on who to write a cogent argument. She claims President Bush—whom she disrespects by calling him Mr. Bush—lied to us about many important issues. Yet she fails to mention any evidence that he has lied to us even once. She claims President Bush has entered us into a pre-emptive war for the first time in American history. I would suggest the good doctor read the Constitution of the United States and then remember that Congress authorized force against Iraq in both 1991—which war had not ended as we only entered into a ceasefire which Saddam Hussein violated on a daily basis—and again prior to the current engagement in Iraq. If Dr. Clark-Cook would study American history, she would learn that we went to war several times as preemptive measures. The war against the Barbary Pirates is an example of a preemptive strike against terrorist thugs. President Bush does have an exit strategy. His exit strategy is event driven, not timetable driven. Of course President Bush has appointed his friends to office. Would Dr. Clark-Cook suggest he appoint his enemies to such positions? She also makes the claim that those individuals the president have appointed are “usually totally unsuitable” for the positions to which they have been appointed. Excuse me? “Usually” implies almost always. “Totally unsuitable” implies those individuals possess neither the knowledge nor the skills nor the abilities nor the competencies to perform the jobs to which they have been appointed. Once again Dr. Clark-Cook does not present the names of any individuals whom President Bush appointed who were “totally unsuitable” for the jobs to which they had been appointed. With the exception of FEMA Director Brown I cannot think of one appointee who was “totally unsuitable”. Apparently the United States Senate approved President Bush’s tens of thousands of appointees. (The United States Senate must approve the appointment and the promotion of every military officer President Bush nominates. I am certain the tens of thousands of military officers appointed and promoted by the President are among those the good doctor considers “usually totally unsuit¬able”.) It appears apparent from the comment that “This (the appointment of “friends” who are “usually totally unsuitable” alone should be impeachable…” indicates Dr. Clark-Cook is unfamiliar with the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution. While the Constitution does not specify the “crimes” for which a President can be impeached, Article II, Section 4 notes that impeachment is for serious violations. That section reads, “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” I must have been asleep when it became a “high Crimes and Misdemanor” for a President to appoint people whom Dr. Clark-Cook deems “totally unsuitable”. I checked the Constitution and failed to find her name there nor any reference to appointments being cleared with the medical community. Dr. Clark-Cook also makes the charge that President Bush has authorized “warrantless wiretaps” yet provides no evidence that he has done so. I suspect she believes that the data mining being performed by the National Security Agency which does not eavesdrop on the content of calls but which uses the connection information to determine what phones known to be used by terrorists are calling what phone numbers in the United States is a “warrantless wiretap”. The doctor seems to care what others in the world think of the United States. Frankly, I don’t care what the French or Germans think as long as they stand aside while we remove evil men like Saddam Hussein with whom many of the leaders of those countries and many “appointees” at the United Nations were taking kickbacks from the “Oil for Food Program” to look the other way while Saddam Hussein spent billions of dollars on himself while starving the children of his enemies. I also do not care what the Islamofascists think of the United States as long as they fear our military and understand that anyone who attacks this country or supports those who do will suffer the fate of al-Zarqawi. I hope for the sake of her patients that the good doctor has a better grasp of medical knowledge and the ability to apply that knowledge in a more rational manner than she displayed in her recent letter to The Sun.
1 posted on 07/13/2006 10:53:20 AM PDT by MIchaelTArchangel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: MIchaelTArchangel

Uh-oh, another elitist with a double-barrelled name!


2 posted on 07/13/2006 10:54:36 AM PDT by RexBeach ("There is no substitute for victory." -Douglas MacArthur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MIchaelTArchangel
To the Editor, Lowell Sun:

Someone should tell Dr. Susan Clark-Cook to take her medications—and then instruct her on who to write a cogent argument.

She claims President Bush—whom she disrespects by calling him Mr. Bush—lied to us about many important issues. Yet she fails to mention any evidence that he has lied to us even once.

She claims President Bush has entered us into a pre-emptive war for the first time in American history. I would suggest the good doctor read the Constitution of the United States and then remember that Congress authorized force against Iraq in both 1991—which war had not ended as we only entered into a ceasefire which Saddam Hussein violated on a daily basis—and again prior to the current engagement in Iraq. If Dr. Clark-Cook would study American history, she would learn that we went to war several times as preemptive measures. The war against the Barbary Pirates is an example of a preemptive strike against terrorist thugs.

President Bush does have an exit strategy. His exit strategy is event driven, not timetable driven.

Of course President Bush has appointed his friends to office. Would Dr. Clark-Cook suggest he appoint his enemies to such positions? She also makes the claim that those individuals the president have appointed are “usually totally unsuitable” for the positions to which they have been appointed. Excuse me? “Usually” implies almost always. “Totally unsuitable” implies those individuals possess neither the knowledge nor the skills nor the abilities nor the competencies to perform the jobs to which they have been appointed. Once again Dr. Clark-Cook does not present the names of any individuals whom President Bush appointed who were “totally unsuitable” for the jobs to which they had been appointed. With the exception of FEMA Director Brown I cannot think of one appointee who was “totally unsuitable”. Apparently the United States Senate approved President Bush’s tens of thousands of appointees. (The United States Senate must approve the appointment and the promotion of every military officer President Bush nominates. I am certain the tens of thousands of military officers appointed and promoted by the President are among those the good doctor considers “usually totally unsuit¬able”.)

It appears apparent from the comment that “This (the appointment of “friends” who are “usually totally unsuitable” alone should be impeachable…” indicates Dr. Clark-Cook is unfamiliar with the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution. While the Constitution does not specify the “crimes” for which a President can be impeached, Article II, Section 4 notes that impeachment is for serious violations. That section reads, “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” I must have been asleep when it became a “high Crimes and Misdemanor” for a President to appoint people whom Dr. Clark-Cook deems “totally unsuitable”. I checked the Constitution and failed to find her name there nor any reference to appointments being cleared with the medical community.

Dr. Clark-Cook also makes the charge that President Bush has authorized “warrantless wiretaps” yet provides no evidence that he has done so. I suspect she believes that the data mining being performed by the National Security Agency which does not eavesdrop on the content of calls but which uses the connection information to determine what phones known to be used by terrorists are calling what phone numbers in the United States is a “warrantless wiretap”.

The doctor seems to care what others in the world think of the United States. Frankly, I don’t care what the French or Germans think as long as they stand aside while we remove evil men like Saddam Hussein with whom many of the leaders of those countries and many “appointees” at the United Nations were taking kickbacks from the “Oil for Food Program” to look the other way while Saddam Hussein spent billions of dollars on himself while starving the children of his enemies. I also do not care what the Islamofascists think of the United States as long as they fear our military and understand that anyone who attacks this country or supports those who do will suffer the fate of al-Zarqawi.

I hope for the sake of her patients that the good doctor has a better grasp of medical knowledge and the ability to apply that knowledge in a more rational manner than she displayed in her recent letter to The Sun.

Thank you.

3 posted on 07/13/2006 10:55:03 AM PDT by MIchaelTArchangel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MIchaelTArchangel

Suzie forgot to mention Haliburton. She won't get her bottle of Thunderbird unless she follows the model DNC letter perfectly.


4 posted on 07/13/2006 10:55:36 AM PDT by Darkwolf377
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MIchaelTArchangel

Could this idiot Susan Clark have employed any more from the liberal boilerplate than all the completly unoriginal and uninspired remarks she makes here?? I have rarely read something with so little substance and with so many pat, liberal phrases as this. Can this woman name anything Bush has lied about to start with?


5 posted on 07/13/2006 10:56:30 AM PDT by MikeA (Not voting in November because you're angry is a vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All

Can't add anything to that. Good response.


6 posted on 07/13/2006 10:56:30 AM PDT by MaestroLC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MIchaelTArchangel

Nice job. Probably a little long so beware of the editors knives.


7 posted on 07/13/2006 10:56:34 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MIchaelTArchangel

Susan Clark-Cook, D.Psy, Bentley College

What do you expect from a psychologist? They are all crazy.


8 posted on 07/13/2006 10:57:13 AM PDT by imskylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MIchaelTArchangel

Appoints his friends to high positions? Rummy and Cheney serving as Defense Sec. in the past does not give them the credentials to serve on his staff? Powell wasn't qualified, Rice, too?

What does she think qualifies a person to serve in an administration? Enough donations to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom?


13 posted on 07/13/2006 10:59:33 AM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife ("Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny. "--Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MIchaelTArchangel
I hope for the sake of her patients that the good doctor has a better grasp of medical knowledge

She's not a medical doctor. She lists her degree as "Psy. D." That is a pseudo-doctorate in psychology. Often the recipients of this degree are RNs who are seeking accreditation as psychologists. Her science is as soft as her reasoning skills.

14 posted on 07/13/2006 11:00:11 AM PDT by blau993
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MIchaelTArchangel

"hope for the sake of her patients that the good doctor has a better grasp of medical knowledge and the ability to apply that knowledge in a more rational manner than she displayed in her recent letter to The Sun."


Somnehow, I really doubt that.


16 posted on 07/13/2006 11:04:38 AM PDT by Jameison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MIchaelTArchangel
This woman forgot the most important thing to call President Bush..

EVIL!!!!! BWAAAHAAAA!!!


19 posted on 07/13/2006 11:05:18 AM PDT by BerniesFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MIchaelTArchangel
"He refuses to accept any responsibility for anything he does, and only appoints friends of his, usually totally unsuited for the job, to high positions in the administration..."

Madeline Albright? Janet Reno? Henry Cisneros? Bill Richardson? Donna Shalala? If hiring friends, or at least the friends of his wife, totally unsuited for the job is an impeachable offense as Suzie seems to think, then I'm sure she was on the front line demanding the removal of Slimey Bill during his tenure.

Yeh, right, sure...

P.S. And don't EVEN get me started on Bill Clinton and the phrase "refusing to accept responsibility for anything he does".

20 posted on 07/13/2006 11:08:52 AM PDT by Exeter (If Life gives you lemons, just shut up and eat the damn lemons!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MIchaelTArchangel
Uh... I'm a tad confused???

Some raving moonbat kook 'Dr' from Lowell, Mass writes a letter, which reads like a post on DU - or something scrawled on the wall of an insane asylum, to the editor of a newspaper with a distribution of six and it's "News"?

Now what would be "News", was if someone in Massachusetts supported Dubya - or who wasn't a stark raving mad socialist lunatic.

21 posted on 07/13/2006 11:09:24 AM PDT by Condor51 (Better to fight for something than live for nothing - Gen. George S. Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MIchaelTArchangel
Consider the source.

Susan Clark-Cook, PsyD.

A native of Ohio, Susan did her undergraduate work at Ohio State University, and took her doctorate at Wright State School of Professional Psychology, where she earned a PsyD. She worked extensively in hospital settings, private psychiatric hospitals where she specialized in adolescent work. Moved to Maine to do her internship and has lived her in the east since then, a long time dream of hers. She currently specializes in women's issues, and teaches Psychology of Women and Psychology of Men. Additionally she advises the Women's Center and BACCHUS on campus, and is active in the Gender Issues Council. An animal lover she has a dog and three cats, and in her spare time she reads and is quite a movie buff.

Susan Clark-Cook, Adjunct Assistant professor of Psychology, Bentley College:

Contributor, Feminist Views of Pornography

Teaching Woemn's Studies to Disadvantaged Women

22 posted on 07/13/2006 11:10:06 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MIchaelTArchangel

Well said! GREAT response!


23 posted on 07/13/2006 11:19:58 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Fire Murtha Now! Spread the word. Support Diana Irey. http://www.irey.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MIchaelTArchangel
I don't like her letter.

But let's give her credit for brevity.

30 posted on 07/13/2006 11:51:55 AM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MIchaelTArchangel

You are priceless!


33 posted on 07/13/2006 11:57:56 AM PDT by rabidralph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MIchaelTArchangel

"Mr. Bush has lied to us about many important issues, he has entered us into a pre-emptive war for the first time in the history of our country, and has no exit strategy. He refuses to accept any responsibility for anything he does, and only appoints friends of his, usually totally unsuited for the job, to high positions in the administration. This alone should be impeachable, and the fact that he believes himself to be above the law has been repeatedly shown as well -- warrantless wiretaps are just one example."

Only high crimes and misdemeanors are impeachable.

Nothing Bush has done has risen to the level of perjury and Clinton proved perjury is not a high crime or misdemeanor anyway.

Dr. Susan Crocked-Cooked is obviously not a Dr. of Law or History.

Besides Bush was RIGHT in the concept or "pre-emption".

If we had followed pre-emption in 1940 when a DEMOCRAT was President there would never have been a Pearl Harbor.


36 posted on 07/13/2006 12:04:16 PM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson