Letters to the Editor
heyjude
Published Letters: 397 Editor's Choice: 42
-
To NotOrbitboy
[Read the article: 0-for-40 on Iraq? Not quite]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What exactly do you mean by "working"?
If we measure everything in terms of whether there are American deaths, it's definitely working.
But I don't think we can say we have accomplished the "mission" in Iraq until the decrease in violence is accompanied by the Iraqis feeling safe to move about, having garbage pickup and water and sewer services, having electricity, having their educational institutions intact, having the middle class return to rebuild society.
This is out of our control. Nothing we have done has made it more or less possible. But we will be leaving a broken country when we leave Iraq, and not a beacon of Democracy that will transform the Middle East, which I understood to be the mission when it was first described by this administration.
I think he Democrats are realistically attempting to change our strategy from violence and aggressiveness to diplomacy. Who knows whether that will work, either, at this point. But there's no doubt that we have some sort of moral obligation to try because the Iraqi people are the current victims of the global war on terror.
-
Nobody's perfect
[Read the article: Clinton, McCain and the B-word]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Isn't this the same guy who sang "Bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of Barbara Ann?
Somehow, that seems more telling to me than winking away a comment about Hillary...
-
Human rights are the core philosophy of our country
[Read the article: Biden scores; Richardson whiffs]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What could you possibly be thinking? I was inspired by Richardson's response to this issue. We used to be able to claim MORAL leadership in the world because we TREASURED our Constitution and the rights it afforded to the free people of a free nation, despite its inherent risks.
Richardson is right. The Constitution is right.
You owe him and us an apology.
Of course national security is important and the president is sworn to defend it. But we have seen, in the last 7 years, what happens when a president decides that national security trumps human rights, as we move closer and closer to being a dictatorship.
I liked Richardson's answer, and I liked Obama's answer, that the two are intertwined. The shrill neocon "you're either with us or with the terrorists" is echoed in Hillary's resounding "yes" to that question, which was a political stance, not a constitutional stance. She has lost my vote, and I'm a woman her age who also went to Wellesley who should be highly motivated to vote for her. I'm sick of her political maneuvering; let's get some real plain, heartfelt talk back into the White House. Someone who is willing to stand for what we all know is the best of our democracy and is willing to regain the moral high ground.
-
Wolf Blitzer is the one who blew it
[Read the article: Clinton, Obama and the yes-or-no question]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wolf Blitzer's "gotcha" questions really sidetracked the whole notion of a debate. In a debate, as I recall learning on our high school debate team, people express nuanced positions and explain them in an attempt to demonstrate the logic of their position.
Wolf's reductionist, "give me a yes or no" on truly significant questions mocks the whole idea of intelligent discourse. He reached a NEW LOW with his question on human rights.
Why don't these pompous journalists just get out of the way in debates and let real people ask real questions that they care about. The so-called journalists are just trying to generate useful sound bites.
-
Curious?
[Read the article: "A bunch of charts"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Tim,
Just out of curiosity, do you really care about substantive issues, or just about politics?
Why do you even waste space on stuff like this? Hillary gave the politically correct answer on NAFTA. What a surprise. The Edwards campaign is getting desperate. What a surprise.
I thought it was odd that Hillary "laughed off" the question about the Perot-Gore debate, since I'm sure she and everyone in the Clinton administration was fully engaged in it at the time. But, on the other hand, so what? Most of us can only remember Perot's endless charts and have lost track of the point after all these years.
But the issue as you have framed it is about politics, not about NAFTA, and we're all pretty sick of politics. We'd like to see substantive discussions of actual issues from all the candidates, and we'd like the press to demand that and stop pandering to the political machines.
-
Anonymous
[Read the article: Biden scores; Richardson whiffs]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Does it occur to you that there is a difference between upholding the human rights that people fought and died for when this country was established and have continued to fight and die for here ever since -- and forcing democracy down the throats of a population that is not interested in it, or not willing to fight and die for it?
Good God, what's your point? We're talking about OUR country and our human rights stance and the moral position we take when we are faced with the demand for rights on the international scene.
Why on earth would we take a hard line on Myanmar, properly Burma, where monks were willing to take to the street and die to promote liberty and justice in their country, but coddle the Pakistani government, where lawyers and ordinary middle class people have taken to the streets and risked their lives and being jailed to promote democracy?
If anyone in Iraq had been marching in the streets demanding the ouster of Saddam and offering to fight to the death to create a unified democracy, we should have offered our support. But that's not the case in Iraq. We invaded a country into which NO ONE asked us to come for any reason, and then occupied it, paying lip service to democracy so we could get rid of Saddam and get control of the oil.
There's a difference between taking a moral stand and supporting those who share those values to the extent that you can, and just using the term democracy as an excuse for something else.