Letters to the Editor
casual_observer
Published Letters: 1359 Editor's Choice: 1
-
capecoral
[Read the article: The NYT on the administration's "debate" over whether to attack Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Are they for war with Iran, or do they fear being attacked for their views? We should be hearing more from the Dem leadership in Congress, too.
You can look up Obama's and Clinton's speeches to AIPAC (or news stories about them) to answer your question. My memory is that they both stated that "all options are on the table" regarding Iran. The inability of the Democratic candidates to frame the debate has left them in a position where they fear to show any "softness" on Iran.
re: the congress, there was specific language in the initial Iraq re-funding bill that told the executive that it needed Congressional approval to engage Iran (something to this effect). That language was removed from the bill that actually passed. Congress was not even able to put a reasonable shot across Bush's bow on this issue, no doubt because the american people failed to put super-majorities of democrats in each house. In other words, if the Congress allows Bush to Bomb Iran, it is our [i.e. the Voters] fault.
-
OK
[Read the article: The NYT on the administration's "debate" over whether to attack Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I recommend asking yourself whether saying "we" will attack Iran in fact strengthens or weakens whatever resolve you possess in opposing such a catastrophe...
OK, how about "you". "Your" armed forces, expending your libertarian tax dollars. Is that more suitable?
-
Who we is
[Read the article: The NYT on the administration's "debate" over whether to attack Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I view it the way DCLaw does, and think he would be right regardless of what the country thought in 2003, and regardless of how the US is viewed overseas. I feel US foreign exploits are done in the name of its citizens, and we pay the bills. So in that sense, we literally must own what the country does.
-
On effective placement of Duck Tape
[Read the article: The NYT on the administration's "debate" over whether to attack Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Get all the neocons in one place and put duct tape over their mouths.
Fine by me, but how does this keep them from speaking?
-
A way out
[Read the article: The NYT on the administration's "debate" over whether to attack Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Listening to the talking heads this morning, there actually is a very feasible innoculation against an Iran strike.
The talking head was saying that at the end of the current, hugely-touted Freidman Unit (Sept.), it seems more likely than not that Iraq is going to look the same as it looks now. This may peel off sufficient Republicans to get a veto-proof majority for Iraq timeline provisions. Seems to me that the "no-iran-strike" provision that was stripped from the Iraq emergency funding bill could be reinserted in one of the various spending bills as well. The democrats in both houses would be in a much stronger position, as they can argue they gave the surge a chance, and the bills in question are not Iraq funding bills--i.e. the Dems can dig their heels in without having to worry about the "you're not supporting the troops" nonsense.
Even this Democratic leadership might be able to perform in this more-favorable setting. It remains possible that renewed lobbying by pro-Israeli groups would once again defeat such a measure, but it would at least give the leadership another chance to actually live up to the word "leadership".
-
Sysprog
[Read the article: The NYT on the administration's "debate" over whether to attack Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That fits doesn't it. A three-month window for Cheney to get his attack in, prior to a possible (perhaps likely) loss of their ability to hold back congress.
Regarding the nature of the air attack (from earlier interesting posts), I don't think nukular is even remotely likely. Cheney will be arguing, I think, that it is not nessessary to totally wipe out the nuclear program, but to simply cripple or delay it. Push it back by a number of years, allowing time to replace the Iranian govt. by other means. He will argue that this is very doable. It is limited. Reasonable. Proportionate. Judicious.
Arguably, of greater importance is the damage that would have to be done to Iran's defenses (air force, radar, and missile sites, navy, etc.) as part of the strike. Severely damage Iran's ability to interfere with oil flows.
-
Hamas
[Read the article: The NYT on the administration's "debate" over whether to attack Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Iran-supported Hamas taking over Gaza and kicking US-supported Fatah's butt, even looting Arafat's home and lifting his Nobel prize, is maybe connected to the discussion. Iran is on a role these days. And the US is scratching it's head, wondering where we went wrong--supporting corrupt governments has always worked well in the past...
It appears that the US had no clue that Hamas was going to win the election so definitively against Fatah a while back. The only warning of Hamas' rapid (and democratic) rise that I'm aware of was from a Frontline-sponsored film crew. The Frontline show aired very close to the election.
Fast forward to today, and again, the takeover of Gaza seems to have come out of the wild blue yonder, as far as our press and government seem to be aware of. One gets the sense that the US is literally blind to what is going on in the Middle East, just as we were blind to the imminent collapse of the Soviet Union years ago--in spite of the fact that they were the arch-enemy and focus of the lion's share of our intelligence activities. One can't help but think that we may not be worth a fiddler's fart when it comes to gathering, understanding, and acting on "intelligence". [NOTE TO SELF--let's take another look at that 'irrefutable' "intelligence" regarding Iran's export of weapons to various countries we are currently occupying.]
Ironically, one aspect of the Neocon grand strategy may be playing out just a bit. And that is the thesis that the invasion and occupation of Iraq might, like the proverbial pebble in the pond, initiate a ripple of truly democratic movements in the Middle East, throwing fear into the hearts of despotic governments in the region. Hamas appears to be such a movement, and indeed has thrown a scare into despotic governments, such as Egypt. Jordan is also worried by Hamas. On slight problem--these are what pass for US allies in the region. Place thumb, strike with hammer.
Well done, Uncle Sam! Onward to Victory!