Robert Sutley's letter to The Pilot (May 31) cherry-picks certain words (e.g., sorry, Bush crowd, financial terrorism, diabolical, plundering and lame argument) to charge Paul Dunn and me with employing invective in our separate criticisms of Dick Cheney.
Invective can be defined as language abuse, thus recalling the old saw: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words (substitute invective) can never hurt me." If these words -- and they are, after all, merely words -- constitute abuse, perhaps we can be found guilty.
On the other hand, I am not guilty of promoting physical abuse as Cheney does with his continuing support of torture through waterboarding despite the opposition of most of America's responsible military and intelligence authorities such as Bob Gates and Gens. Powell and Petraeus.
These admired leaders and most experienced interrogators assert that torture not only does not work effectively, but also it violates principles of the Geneva conventions to which we are pledged.
Is Sutley subtly employing invective himself by referring to my "Pavlovian responses," thereby associating me forever with a bunch of drooling Russian dogs?
I will promise to stop drooling if Cheney will just get off the stage.
More like this story