Letters to the Editor
GeeJay
Published Letters: 125 Editor's Choice: 20
-
Bush's weakening grip
[Read the article: The healthcare war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I would like to read more political reporting about this case. Why is the President choosing this as a fight? The costs of this program are miniscule compared to other budgets. He could have embraced the legislation, claiming it as his own while reanimating his compassionate conservative masquerade, meanwhile giving Republican politicians something to add to their upcoming campaign brochures. From a distance it appears he is engaging in class warfare. It is not enough that the rich have become obscene, he must keep the crumbs from the urchins. Where is the anticipated political gain from this?
I think this is posturing on Bush’s part, to show he still holds claim to the throne of the Republican Party. But in reality it shows that his grip on the throne is slipping, and may be loosened entirely by this episode. History may show that this was his last great blunder.
-
JFKudos to Schlesinger
[Read the article: Arthur M. Schlesinger's playbill for the American century]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I enjoyed reading the article by Mr. Blumenthal. The writings of Mr. Schlesinger have certainly contributed in a positive manner to the cultural history of this country. Reading about the political lives of “successful” politicians can be fascinating – the determined striving for a goal, the constant compromise and rationalization, the betrayals, and the final realization that power is fleeting, and that you die alone.
A present day historian, if he can be called that, is Robert A. Caro, who has written wonderful volumes (and hopefully at least one more) about LBJ. I found the recent “Very Strange Bedfellows: The Short and Unhappy Marriage of Richard Nixon & Spiro Agnew” by Jules Witcover to be greatly entertaining and informative.
-
Fear - the great uniter
[Read the article: How Bush wrecked conservatism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The great problem with the current conservative call of “national security” is that it can never be answered. Because of the proliferation of clandestine means of attack, there will not be a time in the foreseeable future when the United States is immune from small scale strikes. This country has a choice between imbedding fear within its inhabitants, or defining these attacks as criminal enterprises that will be countered by focused counter measures. We must choose between being a society dedicated to solutions or one addicted to primeval masculine posturing.
In modern U.S. history, this fear mongering started with the end of World War II, the object of fear, the Russian troops in Europe. The headlined fear (which was manufactured) was so successful in manipulating the Congress it engendered the Marshall Plan. Since then this method has been used continually. What guarantees its success is that the U.S. populace has a short term and shallow historical consciousness. The populace seems to crave a deadly enemy, thus inflating its own importance and distracting it from problems that require deep and complicated thought.
The weapon of fear will not be sheathed during the reign of this White House administration. In fact this administration is not conscious that such a sheath exists, thus ignorant that a sheath is more powerful than the weapon (for it controls the deadly force).
-
Military redux
[Read the article: Another Iraq invasion?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It’s a story with a familiar plot. Always there is an unsubstantiated attack across a border by a rebel group, with the invaded country’s troops killed, and always with troops missing. The missing troops create two advantages. The home country will envision them being tortured in some dark and evil place thus riling up hatred for the enemy. Secondly, they provide a reason for invasion, to capture their missing commrades. The invasion becomes an act of morality and heroism.
This escapade appears to be the design of non-PKK military planning whose objective is unknown but can be surmised. What is known is that Turkey voiced its concerns about Kurdish independence in northern Iraq five years ago at the time of the American invasion of Iraq. It is also known that the U.S. recently has voiced support for the splitting of Iraq into three domains, one being the Kurdish domain in Northern Iraq. Finally, certain U.S. influences are demanding an attack into Iran, which is coincidentally adjacent to this area of conflict. The scene is set, but will the players act?
An indicator for which to watch is if U.S. troops in any number advance to this area. If so, we can await a story with the same plot where American troops follow the PKK into Turkey, at Turkey’s behest, but are fired upon by Iranian troops who state the U.S. troops crossed into Iranian soil. Of course there will be missing and unaccountable U.S. troops.