Letters to the Editor
Qua Elvis
Published Letters: 22
-
interesting?
[Read the article: The right-wing brain in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Now shooter apparently finds RWA "interesting". Now isn't that precious. Just like his dear leader that certainly would be the right-wing brain in action, wouldn't it.
Let's tune in and find out if he can knock it up a notch to "recognizing", "identifying" and maybe even - yes, let's go for broke everybody - "mortifying" over what he discovers, thereby proving he actually has a functioning brain.
And yes, shooter, this is utter dismissiveness and contempt, with nary a hint of constructive debate or conversation. But since you can't find it in yourself to treat the Constitution of the United States nor the Bill of Rights with anything better, you really don't deserve it either. Fact is, this post is purely for my own enjoyment, but do feel free to glean some edification from it - assuming you can.
-
14 steps backward, 1 alleged step fore = neocon progress
[Read the article: Improvement in Iraq: Trust Joe Klein and his secret sources]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Forgive me if it's already been said, but Al Quaida wouldn't even be in Iraq if it weren't for the invasion, coup and occupation. Somehow I don't the think the survivors of the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dead, mostly innocent in Iraq along with the millions of displacd are breaking out the party favours with this "news".
-
@LWM
[Read the article: The Republican Party is the party of Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Realpolitik] refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on practical considerations, rather than ideological notions.
Unless your ideological notions are nothing more or less than the practical considerations necessary to wield more power like your average RWA neocon, then sure I guess.
Hence "Bush failed conservatism".
-
@LWM
[Read the article: The Republican Party is the party of Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But America is less powerful and influential today, in the realpolitik sense, than it has been since the before WWII.
Sure, and while the concept of realpolitik is generally applied to international relations, I don't see why it can't be applied domestically as well. In this sense, if power and influence are any indication, American neocon realpolitik (while counterfactual in the context of Libertarian at Large's original post) is undeniably real and depressingly successful.
Hence (once again) the dishonest efforts of conservatives to pretend Bush is not one of them.
-
@the Voice of Reason
[Read the article: Joe Lieberman, warmongering centrist]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Good contribution, but...
1."In reality, if our objective is to divide the nation, establish a weak and needy government, and establish a military footprint in the heart of the middle east, then we are successful in Iraq (from a neo-con strategic point of view.)"
That's an absurd "if". Firstly Dubya was (s?)elected partly on a humble foreign policy platform ("no nation building"). Secondly most Americans likely do not recognize nor understand neo-conservatism much less identify or agree with it. Iraq is an unmitigated disaster for everyone and everything SAVE this tiny clique of neo-cons and their financial backers.
2."It is what comes after defeating the government of Iran and its armies that would be the problem."
It is preposterous to think the US can defeat the government of Iran and its armies unilaterally in the present state of affairs. Did you sleep through the last four-plus years? Where are these extra necessary forces going to come from? Or how'd that IDF/Hezbollah mostly airwar/limited ground engagement go? Do you really think when the US pre-emptively invades/attacks/whatever on/into Iran it won't start stirring things up in a bad way elsewhere? (Remember, Iran DOES have WMD) Do you think Turkey won't? Assuming defeat of the government and its armies is possible (very arguable), what happens during and next IS the primary worry of the sensible types around here with regard a war with Iran. Most of us remember Shinseki and his estimate of about 400,000 troops on the ground to "stabilize" Iraq post-invasion. There's not even a hint of that kind of planning or forethought being put into this crackpot adventure. It's like "greeted as liberators" on steroids. As if it were possible it's even more pure blood-soaked, sociopathic poppycock.
3."The distance between you and them is greater than between themselves and a Republican."
Good point. No arguments there.
4."In reality our interest in the middle east has been about energy, and strategic positioning."
Likely true, and not that controversial either. That and you really don't hear that much about the US doing the "bidding" of Israel except straight from the mouths of your average neo-Zionist pundit and pol, and they're usually pretty explicit about it when they conflate American and Israeli national interest and security. Cooler heads of a non-ideological bent, i.e. your average Democrat not running for President, do not usually go there and when we do it's usually in response to the latest illogical conflation by the aforementioned neo-Zionist.
"How will Democrats develop an honest position on war and national defense, when their heads are in the sand about the realities of our geopolitical strategy?"
Sez you and a few men composed of something looking an awful lot like straw. That and I don't know who your "our" is, but I'm pretty sure we'll disagree. I can't say what an honest position on war and national defense would actually be, but it doesn't involve anything to with your proclaimed falsehoods of #1 and #2 but it would have at least smatterings of #3 and #4.
"Ignorance of the situation, and a simplification of the situation got us into trouble in the middle east, it is not going to get us out."
True. Now tell it to the red states and make them understand, because that little bit of advice you gave is mostly just preaching to the choir, bub.
-
Re: rule of law
[Read the article: Joe Klein's stirring defense of Lewis Libby]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think if one reads this explanation of "rule of law" from our own government, one will discover that we stopped honoring that rule of law a long time ago [...]- bucky1
President Andrew Jackson's non-execution of Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832) to be precise.
-
fucktardery
[Read the article: Richard Cohen's brilliant (and unintentional) exposé of our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]= Dick Cohen's "work" in one word. Pravda in its heyday couldn't have churned out a more odious jackbootlicker.