Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 361 Editor's Choice: 12
-
Desertion by the Dems
[Read the article: Improvement in Iraq: Trust Joe Klein and his secret sources]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The central unyielding truth in our political landscape is that -- no matter what -- the War in Iraq is not going to end before the end of the Bush presidency. That has been obvious for a very long time, and that is why it is so bizarre to watch the Beltway establishment continue to pretend that there is some Big Decision Day coming in September -- the day when Republicans take a stand and our political elite put their foot down.
Nothing has changed. Republicans and media-war-proponents are far too invested in the war to do anything other than claim it is finally going well. And there are more than enough Democrats who either (a) believe we should stay in Iraq indefinitely, (b) perceive political benefits from staying, and/or (c) fear forcing withdrawal.
BTW, "bated" not "baited" breath.
The wholesale investment by the DC elite in this catastrophic occupation has always been mind-boggling. I never think it can worse, but it has consistently become more and more disconnected from reality. Would anyone have predicted that the impact of the resounding thumping the president got in the 06 elections would be....none? That he'd get to ride out his term in a continuation of spending huge sums of money killing thousands of innocent people, maiming and killing young American soldiers.
Does anyone believe, at this point, that any of the presidential candidates anointed by the media as credible (that is, not Gravel and not Paul) will actually withdraw? Are we really going to become some kind of broken version of imperial Rome, extending military force everywhere, but getting no tribute?
Joe's a manifestation. It's a manifestation of a deeply broken system. And this whole election business isn't working the way it's supposed to. It doesn't matter what voters believe. It doesn't matter what people believe public policy should be.
In Glenn's foreword to HWAPA, he remarks that up until this administration, he had no interest in politics. It seemed to him that the petty venality was pretty much evenly distributed between the parties, and that the constitution protected us from any real evil. That's proven not to be true--hence the blog, and hence the book.
So it's all out there in plain sight--see the comments over at Time's Swampland. And nothing changes.
Yesterday, in response to despair he saw around the web on the democratic collapse on the supplemental budget, Markos pointed out that nobody said this would be easy, and that we can't stop because of setbacks. He's right. But, sheesh....
-
Smoot
[Read the article: Improvement in Iraq: Trust Joe Klein and his secret sources]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The MIT student was named Smoot.
-
On Shrum
[Read the article: Improvement in Iraq: Trust Joe Klein and his secret sources]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Greg Sargent posted a response he received from Klein. I put that response into Joe post comments yesterday.
The short answer is that Klein says the advice was solicited, and that he has no particular personal relationship with Kerry.
Still, it's an interesting insight into the way these things work. You can read it as Kerry working the refs, or you can read it as Klein inserting himself into a place he doesn't belong. But it is clearly the case that this is not an instance of intrepid reporter doing his adversarial best to get to the bottom of a story.
But I think we've pretty much disposed of that myth, haven't we?
-
First Strike
[Read the article: Attacks on civilians, torture and lawless detentions]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In "The Fog of War," Robert McNamara says that the nuclear attacks were done to prove to the world, not that we "could" do it, but more importantly, that we "would" do it.
This is something that most Americans are not aware of. While they know that the US dropped the bombs in Japan, they are not aware that the US is the only country that has openly endorsed first use of nuclear weapons. US nuclear weapons were built to counter Soviet conventional forces.
In addition to the ICBMs and SLBMs that the US has in place, the US also developed "theater nukes" intended for use against conventional forces. The Bush administration may have extended that program in the development of "bunker buster" nukes. (I recall reading about their proposing this, but not the implementation of the plans. But the implementation may be a secret project.)
The US was the first to acquire nuclear weapons, has always had the largest warhead stockpile and, as Gravel said in the SC debate, keeps that option on the table as a pre-emptive measure.
This is a terribly destablizing policy, made worse by the Iraq war (the US invaded the axis of evil country that didn't have a nuclear capability, which made it quite clear that the North Koreans had wisely invested in a deterrent capability.) The US has had numerous opportunities to lead by example and reduce proliferation, and it has never done so.
Worse, as Glenn points out in a different context, the discussion of reducing US nuclear capability is not permitted by the MSM and "leading" politicians, even though, imo anyway, such a discussion would lead to reductions in nuclear weaponry, and a less aggressive posture.