Letters to the Editor
casual_observer
Published Letters: 1253 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Just for Laughs II
[Read the article: The complete myth driving our Iraq "debate"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is what was presented to president 5/27. The bill is HR 2206. There are a ton of dead bills on THOMAS regarding Iraq spending, so it is somewhat confusing to figure out which one made it, but I believe this is it.
"Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the President and Congress should not take any action that will endanger the
U.S. armed forces, and will provide necessary funds for training, equipment, and other support for troops in the field, as such actions will ensure their safety and effectiveness in preparing for and carrying out their assigned missions; (2) the President, Congress, and the Nation have an obligation to ensure that those who have bravely served this country in time of war receive the medical care and other support they deserve; and (3) the President and Congress should continue to exercise their constitutional responsibilities to ensure that the armed forces have everything they need to perform their assigned or future missions, and review, assess, and adjust U.S. policy and funding as needed to ensure our troops have the best chance for success in Iraq and elsewhere."
-
Of course it's colonial
[Read the article: After everything we did for them]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Whether on economic, strategic, or ideological grounds--or all of the above, the invasion and occupation of Iraq is an act of colonialism. The only surprise in this regard is that those who market the strategy haven't come up with any new, glitzy ways to sell it.
And it is now a colonial strategy officially sanctioned and funded by this Democratic congress. With a hijacked Republican Party, and a Democratic party that lacks vision, leadership, and strategic competence, it is time--indeed long passed time--that a major third party be formed.
-
The 600,000 midpoint
[Read the article: After everything we did for them]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think the Lancet study is better expressed as a range than a single figure. It's been awhile, but I believe that range was something like 300,000-900,000. Perhaps is was 400,000 to 800,000. And of course, that estimate is no longer current. It's been awhile.
Personally, I put more faith in the Lancet study than I do in the figures proposed or approved by either the US or Iraqi governments. After all, the US government simply can't be trusted to produce anything but propaganda, and the Iraqi government is our creature. The US government also has a recent history of suppressing and distorting scientific research in its own agencies.
So until a new, better study comes along in a peer-reviewed journal that seriously challenges the existing study, I suggest one is on firmer scientific ground using the Lancet study.
-
Darfur as a yardstick
[Read the article: After everything we did for them]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To place the Lancet study in context, we can look to Darfur, which the United Nations terms "one of the world's worst humanitarian crises", and which the current US administration specifically classifies as Genocide. "Experts" estimate that 200,000 people have died in Darfur, over the past several years.
If 200,000 in Darfur is genocide, what is 600,000 in Iraq?
-
Tens, Hundreds, What's the difference?
[Read the article: After everything we did for them]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Finally, I don't think it much matters for the point being made whether the number of civilian deaths is tens of thousands or more (and, technically speaking, even 300,000 deaths is "tens of thousands -- 30 tens).
The above strikes me as something one might hear from Tony Snow, if he were ever to acknowlege and discuss the mortality issue and the study in Lancet.
I don't think this is an offshoot or sidetrack of the point at all. It goes directly to the suffering and pain of the (surviving) Iraqi people, and thus directly to Blair's disconnected reasoning. "Disconnected" from reality, I mean.
-
Civil Case?
[Read the article: Right-wing noise machine: Plame not covert]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thank GG for sifting through several years worth of lies regarding this story, so we don't have to. A classic case of how one simply can't trust anything this government says, nor most of the media.
I take it that Wilson and Plame are continuing to go after various high level administration officials in civil court--and hope this will have a positive impact on that. Wouldn't it be great if revelations from that trial caught (or "re-caught") Fitzpatrick's attention. This particular road appears to lead to Cheney, and Mr. Fitzpatrick knows it.
-
What is torture
[Read the article: Al-Qaida does it, too]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The "conservative base" in the last GOP presidential debate reserved their cheers for Mitt Romeny's moronic call to "double Guantanamo," and for Tom Tancredo's yearning for Jack Bauer. The more enthusiastically a candidate defended torture and lawless detentions, the louder the cheers were.
I propse that watching the presidential debates is torture.
-
Santayana's lie of omission
[Read the article: Al-Qaida does it, too]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, or blog about it, or something.
What that bastard Sanyayana failed to mention was that those who remember history are also doomed to repeat it.
-
The Format
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I listened to Sam Seder's show this afternoon, and I watched the Democratic Debate on CNN this evening. In each of these entertainments, the format did everything it could to ruin meaning, thought, content.
The issues Americans are trying to consider in this country are complex, difficult, and persistent. And yet we place our talent (those we're listening to in these formats) in the impossible position of enlightening us within 5, or 15, or 30 second intervals. The Format is inefficient in the extreme.
That said, I thought the Seder panel discussion was good, as far as it went. Likewise, I thought the debate was useful in spots. In my view, the 'second tier' candidates were much more interesting and sounded more worthy for the office. Biden spoke passionately about Darfur and made honest and good remarks on public funding of campaigns. Dodd said the first thing he would do was to correct the constitutional abuses of the current administration. Generally, issues of civil liberties weren't mentioned much, which is troubling. Kucinich, the radical fringe candidate, made the most sense to me on many issues.