Letters to the Editor
Brian - Seattle
Published Letters: 265 Editor's Choice: 8
-
Fester
[Read the article: What Pennsylvania tells us]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I predict that nothing will change then either. We'll see Clinton win in IN and he wins in NC. There will be no surprises and this thing will slog on till June when the score will be 11 Obama 10 Clinton in the 54th inning.
-
Why can't Hillary close the Deal?
[Read the article: Obama can't close the deal ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But watching Obama stumble across the finish line as the presumptive nominee is not a formula to inspire the Democrats with confidence heading into the fall elections.
But Hillary is fighting her way in the lead? She can't make any more inroads into his voting demographic base than he can into hers. Why is this such a huge idea? Could you not argue that Obama is fighting to stay ahead in the race and that when he crosses the finish line he was able to do it by fighting the typical politics of Washington against an establishment candidate?
If Hillary is such a great formidable candidate with name recognition and a powerful political machine, why can't she close the deal?
The answer is neither can and that's why we are where we are now. Neither candidate can deliver that "knock-out" that everyone disparately wants. As a result, we fall into this petty bickering about a statement or a supporter and it is doing nothing for our country. Do I have an answer? No, but it doesn't seem that anyone with a voice in the media does either. Perhaps that's what the story should be.
-
I don't really agree that negative campaigning hurt her
[Read the article: New York Times editorial scolds Clinton ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I honestly think the result we have seen would have been the same if she didn't go negative. This because the demographics were in her favor. As this post notes, there weren't many 20 point polls when the race seriously began.
That editorial seems to be written by an Obama supporter that wants Hillary's negative campaigning to matter when in fact it probably didn't. This is no different from any other statement from either side. Everyone wants this race to be decisive in some way and to show that there is one thing that we can point to in order to see it. I just don't see it happening.
-
Iran and Nuclear weapons
[Read the article: What Pennsylvania tells us]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just some points on all Iran and nuclear weapons.
We already have the umbrella agreement with many countries. We don't have to place weapons in the state to launch them into Iran. Our nuclear triad is bombers, submarines, and ICBM's. You can put a Ohio class sub in the Arabian gulf. No need for bombers in Iraq. The instability of the region would prohibit this idea anyway since terrorists could potentially seize one of the warheads much more easily.
As far as Israel, they are widely believed to already have a nuclear arsenal even though they have not declared such. Israel does not need our assurances to defend their country from Iran. As for the other states there, that may be an issue and Saudi Arabia is one state that would consider nuclear weapons if Iran were to obtain them.
Under Iran's current capabilities, they could have enough material for 1 weapon in 10 years. This is an estimate but most believe that from what we know from the IAEA, this is pretty close. Iran is enriching Uranium, which could be used for a simpler nuclear weapon. However, unless they have the infrastructure and scientific knowledge of the weapon on the scale of the U.S. during the Manhattan project, they would most likely need to test such a weapon. (The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a Uranium weapon and was not tested because scientists were sure it would work) A test would not go unnoticed, nor would Iran wish it to be, by the rest of the world. This suggests they would need to enrich longer to gain more material for a weapon.
The other method of obtaining the material needed (plutonium) is to build a reactor. Iran is expected to complete their reactor at Bushehr soon. However, after this is done, you need to have facilities to separate the spent fuel material after use. After this you need to have more advanced knowledge of bomb making to use Plutonium for a bomb, which is not as simple as a Uranium bomb.
So, those are more or less the facts of the situation. What you use that information for is up to debate.
From my perspective, for Hillary to state she would "obliterate" Iran is more saber rattling and politics than anything else. There is time to "deal" with Iran on nuclear weapons but the most effective way, in my view, is to start with diplomacy and genuine talks to deal with the situation. While I do not believe any nation that builds a nuclear weapon ever intends on using it, building it would create even more tensions in an already tense region.
-
This is exactly what he needs to do
[Read the article: Will Obama shift his focus to McCain?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If he engages Hillary, he fights at her level and puts him on the defensive, where she has the advantage. It also feeds the media's quest for more gotcha politics that are good for ratings.
He's going to be the nominee, pretty much everyone agrees with this in some way. Therefore, he should be focusing on McCain because that is what will be on voters minds now.
-
Best the War Room has been for awhile
[Read the article: Passing back the baton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No disrespect to Alex, but I really enjoyed your posts. They were solid. Nice work, you'll be missed.