Letters to the Editor
rphillips111
Published Letters: 201 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Good Time for Liberals
[Read the article: Good times for liberals]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The review of Paul Krugman's book is worth reading. Whether Mr. Krugman's book is that great, I do not know.
I do know this: Mr. Krugman may be right that the pendulum is swinging back to a liberal takeover. I know that as a conservative who is disappointed immensely in the Bush Presidency--though I never voted for him.
The Bush White House, with its planned abandonment of virtually every conservative position which brought the republican revolution to power in order to attract essentially liberal minority constituencies and create "a permanent republican majority". In concert with policies which reward massive break-ins of illegal immigrants into the country. The continued export of american jobs and industries to third world countries, virtual carte blanche for multinational corporations (that's what "globalism" is all about) and a horrendous foreign policy in which the plan is not for america to lead the world, but for amerika to rule the world.
These policies are more liberal--I mean "moderate"--neo-Rockefeller Republicanism than the conservatism which brought the republidan majority to power. "Gimme" programs and class warfare Democrats so love will have little to do with the pendulum swing. THE REPUBLICANS UNDER GEORGE BUSH HAVE DONE IT TO THEMSELVES AND THE REST OF US. THE BUSH REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS ABANDONED THE CAUSES WHICH BROUGHT REPUBLICANS TO POWER.
Mr. Krugman and Mr. Leonard can thank George Bush, the neo-con contingent, Rove, Ralph Reed (a big factor), Mehlman, and the general stupidity of Republican policy makers the past 7 plus years for any Democratic ascendancy which occurs.
-
No Draft! No Way! The Neocons want it back, though.
[Read the article: Must be more "phony soldiers"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The only way we can sustain the neocon vision of The American Century--perpetual war for perpetual peace--by invading and occupying every country we decide is a "failed state", is with a draft.
There is no more fatuous argument that the best way to keep the country out of Iraqs and Vietnams is with a Draft. We fought Vietnam with a Draft which had been in place fifteen years, and could not have fought it without a draft. If we had had a draft in 2003, when Iraq was invaded, you can bet your ass we would also be occupying Syria and at least in open war with Iran by now.
Liberals and Neocons hate Rumsfeld, but Rumsfeld took office to end the WWII and Cold War army, which was still in place to a remarkable degree. The military hated him for it. And the day after 911 Rumsfeld declared we would have no draft. He said it is the most inefficient manpower system there is.
The pro-drafters fall into two categories. One crowd wants a WWII style army and limitless manpower to wage whatever they like, and secretly believe we can't have an army without a draft despite the last 30 years of a volunteer army. They tend to be right wing or of military descent, like McCain. The other crowd wants universal service, in which everyone has to spend time in the military or some sort of other approved work as a requirement of citizenship--preferably a politically activist organization masquerading as a Charity. They tend to be liberal, and view compulsory service as a socializing influence and a way to indoctrinate the young, like Froggy Mikulski, Bayhr, and numerous other individuals of "liberal conscience".
Once instituted, a draft becomes a part of the Social, economic, political life of the ocuntry and is very hard to get rid of. Only after the disaster of Vietnam--a lot like Iraq--was the public roused to end this awful, totalitarian institution.
-
Anony's "The Thing About . . .
[Read the article: Must be more "phony soldiers"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anony, you are right when you write the ones who got us into the Iraq war planned to stay, for generations. And numerous democrats have bought that policy, including Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Edwards apparently. They don't promise to be out by 2013.
The first order of business is to Change That Policy. Token troop withdrawals are public relation stunts designed to keep us in Iraq, not get us out. The Bush policy is not to hand off the Iraq war to his successor, but to hand off the war and its underpinning policy to the future. Secondarily, he sure is planning on attacking Iran, and major troop withdrawals before that would be impossible.
However, an attack on Iran will result in more US troops in the middle east afterwards, not fewer. The Bush White House is the greatest foreign policy disaster in our history, and the democrats and public are complicit in it, as these pro-draft posts illustrate.
-
A candidate fo rthe confused
[Read the article: A candidate for the confused]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Guiliani is the perfect candidate to be mayor of New York. But New York is not the nation, nor even a microcosm of it. A raving liberal socially speaking; a wallstreet syncophanter economically speaking; probably more likely to appoint someone similar to himself to the Supreme Court.
MOreover, he is most likely George Bush's candidate to succeed him. He might continue the neocons' American Century policy of world domination and perpetual war for perpetual peace.
Much as I applauded him as Mayor of NY, I can't imagine myself voting for Rudolph Guiliani for President.
-
Bush at peace with himself
[Read the article: Bush "at peace" waging war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]U'm nor surprised at all that Bush was "at peace" with the Iraq war, and the only thing worrying him now is the opposition to it by "non believers".
Am I the only person who has seen a fanatical gleam in George's eye and the sense he is walking with some unseen presence whenever he appears? He has a palpable sense of certainty, righteousness and rectitude in all his actions. That New England ancestry coming out, I guess.
-
All the Candidates' mein kamphs
[Read the article: All the candidates' books]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think I am on firm ground in my belief that every biography of every candidate is propaganda, either for or against the runner.
As such, information wise, theype worthless, and not worth even a discounted purchase price. Even some of them which aren't biographies but campaign oriented, perhaps the first being the ghostwritten "Profiles in Courage" by JFK.
-
nepotistic neocons
[Read the article: Nepotistic tough guys and their coddling parents]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am under the impression most of the our neo conservatives got their radical personal traits from an entirely different ancestry. Aren't most of them red diaper babies, descended from old bolsheviks and other commies?