Letters to the Editor
had_enough
Published Letters: 816 Editor's Choice: 48
-
some revisionist history
[Read the article: I Like to Watch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Natch, I haven't seen the Burns opus yet, but I'd guess that he validates the canard that America was somehow at center stage in WWII.
Some very acute, revisionist history in the last few years has *proven* that America's role in WWII was a sideshow.
We did not save the world for Democracy. Joseph Stalin did. The war in the East was the main event. Without Stalin, Hitler would have over-run all of Europe, and if Hitler had made a deal with ol' Joe and stuck to it (instead of abrogating it in his invasion of the Soviet Union), we'd have had real trouble preventing an invasion of Britain.
The only reason we were able to land at Normandy was because ol' Joe was keeping Hitler's generals busy with over *100* combat divisions in the East.
In short, the story America believes about WWII is in many ways a fiction. It'd do us good to understand our place in that war, but we won't. We never do like a truth that makes us less than we think we are.
Don't get me wrong, the US military fought bravely and well in that war...but our effort, and loss, was modest compared to what the Russians suffered in defense, not just of themselves, but all of Europe.
-
@orson...why now? That's easy
[Read the article: The Democrats' responsibility in the wake of Gonzales' resignation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]orson asks:
But WHY?
So that's Rove and Gonzales out. Why? It obviously has nothing to do with "being a distraction." Something big is about to hit the fan, either yet another scandal or we'll be bombing Iran soon and they wanted to clear the decks of the ballast first.
-- Orson
**********
That one's easy, imho. I would not *totally* discount the importuning of big-wigs in the GOP. I think Bush and Cheney had to do something. It's hard enough for them to figure out a way to seem to soften on the Iraq war without actually changing anything.
Rove and Gonzalez have been targets of more timid GOPers for a long time now.
But, even more, I suggest that Bush and Cheney finally decided to do something to mitigate some of the damage, and August is the usual time to do this sort of thing, when no-one's home, no-one's paying attention. The week before labor-day is the deadest week in the entire political calendar. They'd probably have had Rove and Gonzalez both leave this week, but that would have looked too obvious, even for them.
So, Rove goes early. Gonzalez goes at a time when almost no-one in the Base--nor anyone else--is paying any attention. By the time everyone wakes up, next week, it'll be old news. Hardly worth mentioning. Which is the idea.
Typical of these guys. They're operators. Have been for their entire careers. When *else* would that throw over surplus baggage? This is absolutely the best time for it, if yer gonna do it at all.
-
@elephantguy...are you paying attention at all?
[Read the article: Why did Gonzales resign?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]you wrote:
Now, 25 days later, the reason that Gonzalez must resign is that he knows too much about those evildoings in the Bush White House.
*********
I musta missed it, but where, praytell, in the essay, did Blumenthal say what you attribute to him, above?
Did you read the essay at all? a couple of others here have pointed out the obvious hole in your "argument": circumstances have changed. If Rove was Gonzo's manager (and, who knows? Maybe he was, it's as good a theory as any. Surely you don't think Shrub was calling the shots for Gonzo, do you? Tell us. You think Bush was telling Gonzo what to do? And if not, who was it? Rove? Cheney? Bozo the clown? You?), then circumstances have changed and your quote of Blumenthal's earlier piece is entirely irrelevant.
This is so typical of those of you on the right: quote a quote that does not apply, then try to make it apply, and damn the source of the quote when quote and circumstances don't correspond..
Now, when we quote YOU guys saying stupid shit, it's almost always accurate, complete and damning all by itself, because you guys say the dumbest possible crap on a regular basis. We don't have to make it up...the way you seem to do. If you read Greenwald you know what I mean.
As for why Gonzo resigned, I think it's a good question. I'm not sure Blumenthal has answered it. I must confess, I'm a bit surprised...unless, of course, Bush makes a recess appointment, or the fix for Chertoff is already in. That would not surprise me, the Dems in congress being such spineless, opportunistic hacks, on the evidence.
I do think something is up, because there was no reason I can think of, offhand, why Gonzo could not have served out his term in office.
Unless, of course, something very bad was/is about to blow up in his face. Then, maybe there's the reason.
But Gonzo didn't need Rove to tell him what to do, I don't think. He knew what to do. Whatever was necessary to protect the President. Period. Given spineless Dems in Congress, surely that would not have been a very difficult thing to continue to do.