Letters, We Read Letters

In the New York Times Book Review letters to the editor, a certain Tom Rubey of Woodbury, Minnesota (I usually don't discuss otherwise unknown letter-writers, but presumably this guy is proud of what he's done) notes that a photo of George Bush playing rugby at Yale shows him committing an improper tackle. Rubey goes on to explain:

Although rugby is considered a rough game, the laws on foul play are written to protect someone from unnecessarily getting hurt. Perhaps George W. Bush's experiences at Yale provided the framework for his presidency.

I'm willing to assume the tackle in this old photo was illegal. Let's even pretend Bush played under the precise rugby rules Rubey mentions, and the photo is a fair representation of Bush as a rugby player. Isn't it still incredibly childish to use this photo as a pretext for a cheap swipe at the President?

My question is, does the NYT print such letters because they want to embarrass Rubey, or do they honestly think somehow, somewhere, there's a point in there?

Meanwhile, in the letters to the editor of the Sunday LA Times, "Current" section, Thomas Bliss of Sherman Oaks says he doesn't care if Bill Clinton claimed Saddam had WMDs since, unlike Bush, he didn't start a war without reason. Mr. Bliss might be surprised to discover that Clinton, in fact, used our military to attack several countries (including--what's that name again--oh yeah, Iraq), without giving months of warning and last chances, without seeking and receiving condemnation of the enemy in the UN, and without getting permission from the Congress. Moreover, Clinton's actions, it turns out, were sometimes based on faulty intelligence! Furthermore, Osama Bin Laden is on record as being quite heartened when Clinton bugged out from one of his missions, convinced America was a paper tiger.

Ah, ignorance is Bliss.