Letters to the Editor
Ricardo Malocchio
Published Letters: 155 Editor's Choice: 2
-
I agree with redgti's ID of the Iraq withdrawal problem...
[Read the article: The numbers crunch Hillary in Texas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...but disagree with his conclusion that either McCain or Clinton would be more capable of succeeding on this point.
Part of Obama's appeal for me is precisely on the foreign policy issues and the future conduct of this war with extremist Islamic militants. Yes, it *is* a war. Yes, we *will* have to continue fighting it. And, yes, extraction from Iraq will be most difficult. I refer you all back to Powell's prescient analysis: "if we break it, we've bought it".
None of the candidates has offered a satisfactory plan for Iraq. Not Mr. 100 years, not Obama, and not Clinton. If you know of some brilliant (or even merely passable) plan for withdrawal by Clinton or McCain (your no. 2 choice), please enlighten me. I've been let down on this point by all the candidates. Including my own.
That said, I strongly favor Obama's pronouncements on foreign policy going forward, and I certainly prefer that he opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. On the latter point, you may say that's easy to do so when you don't have to cast a vote, but let me remind you that he was running for a Senate seat during the most pro-War, flag-wavingist, jingoistic period in recent memory. The notion that he took no risk in opposing the Iraq War is preposterous, whether you'll allow him that or not. On the former point, I certainly agree with his foremost point that we should redouble our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where a resurgent Taliban and a reconstituted al-Qaeda grow stronger by the day. As you may recall, this was one of the many arguments against the Iraq war. Arguments that fell on deaf ears in the cases of Clinton and McCain.
And what of Clinton and McCain's criticisms of Obama as "naive" for the following pronouncement: "if we have actionable intelligence regarding al-Qaeda, and Pakistan is incapable or unwilling to act, I will do so". Following Obama's remarks, the current administration did exactly that in a directly analogous Predator missile attack on an al-Qaeda outpost in North Waziristan. We don't know if Pakistan was incapable or unwilling to attack that outpost, nor if we consulted them. But neither Clinton nor McCain criticized this action. And neither would I. But Obama is "naive" for making this policy plain?
And then there's the very slightly less analogous attack on Islamic extremists in Somalia (which doesn't really have a unified government, e.g., falling under the "incapable" prong of Obama's rules of engagement). Is this also an act that neither McCain nor Clinton would take?
Further, while it's difficult to quantify the so-called "soft power" of an Obama presidency. But I think many would agree that, more than a war of weapons, this is a war of ideas. Call me naive, but I sincerely believe that when the desperate and dispossessed in the Middle East, northern Africa, and all the -stans - those very people most likely to be radicalized by extremist Islam - awake to the swearing in as POTUS of a dusky hued individual named Barack Hussein Obama, certain received notions about our country will go flying out the window. You can call me naive if you wish, but I look to the candidates that other countries elect, and I accept that those elected candidates say something about those countries. For example, the recent Pakistani elections tell me that the electorate is sick and tired of American-supported military thugs *and* fundamentalistic Islamic parties. Had Ms. Bhutto lived to be elected, that too would tell me something about Pakistan. I think it's naive to believe that the election of Obama wouldn't have some effect.
-
Huge momentum change...
[Read the article: No Texas-size victory for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Before yesterday, this was the Democrats' race to lose.
As of today, it's the Republicans' race to lose.
There is nothing to blame but circumstance. After all, how could supporters of either Democratic nominee ask the other to withdraw in such a close race? Given that we anticipated a long race, we could only hope that our candidates remained civil towards one another and did not stoop to the level of the GOP slime machine. That appears to have flown out the window with the "kitchen sink" strategy.
And there's McCain over there - all confidence and smiles. There's Huckabee, withdrawing gracefully and praising the GOP nominee. And remarking, notably, what a clean and civil campaign it was. And, good god, he's right. It was a civil campaign. Just the opposite of GOP Primary 2004. My oh my, don't those Republicans look confident, competent, ready-to-lead? My oh my, don't those Democrats look inconstant, mendacious, incapable of even treating one another civilly?
"President McCain". Get used to it. *sigh*
-
No one's suprised by the delegate count...
[Read the article: No Texas-size victory for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This race was not reset. These primaries kept the two campaigns in virtually the same position as they were yesterday... lurching toward the convention with little possibility of a single redeemable candidate emerging. We need to schedule Florida and Michigan quickly, if we're to avoid a showdown on the convention floor, in the credentialing committee, and ultimately in the courts.
All the while, the Republicans will be projecting just how confident, competent, and ready-to-lead they are. We'll be hoping for a meltdown or at least a series of missteps, hoping for scandal, hoping for something that might wrench this race back from the GOP's grasp.
Not exactly the sort of hope I was hoping for.
-
How far do we go?
[Read the article: Women-only workouts]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Muslim men were complaining about the presence of women in the gym, would Harvard ban women for a few hours a week? Or if Afrikaner students complained about the presence of black students, would Harvard ban black students for a few hours a week?
-
zzz05
[Read the article: No Texas-size victory for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah, we've had far too many non-caucasion presidents in that time period. Let's give whity a chance for once, why don't we?
(Not my position, of course. Just responding to an absurdity with an inanity)