Lampooning the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the column, "Let grumpy chief justice eat cake," was uncalled for.
If, in a State of the Union address, a president is going to say something that is untrue about the action of member(s) of another branch of government, in all fairness should not the State of the Union program be changed to allow member(s) of that defiled branch to speak in self-defense?
If not, should not a president be a bit more careful what he says?
As reporters of The Washington Post and The Washington Times have written: "There are restrictions on foreign participation in U.S. elections that were not part of the case." The restrictions are still in place.
The president and/or his speechwriters showed a bit of ignorance or just didn't care about the facts.
I'd be grumpy, too, if someone made a public statement that I did something I didn't do. Wouldn't you?
TOM PIERPOINT
Woodbridge
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement