Letters to the Editor
Holly McLachlan
Published Letters: 472 Editor's Choice: 3
-
The point = pointless death, dismemberment, and destruction of our national interest
[Read the article: How much credence should Gen. Petraeus' reports be given?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So what's the point?
The point is that the boggy status quo in Iraq is as good as a loss for the U.S. Our national interest is damaged by the continuing chaos in Iraq (despite improvements in desolate, sparsely populated Anbar.) Gen. Petraeus has been consistently optimistic about it and remains 'guardedly' optimistic about the present surge strategy. Come September, he clearly won't be presenting a report that will upset the Administration's apple cart. His report will be used to maintain this bloody, damaging status quo.
In the article, Greenwald refutes exactly NONE of the General's statements.
1) This is not a fact. Some of his refutations are not in this post, but Glenn always addresses the broad failure of Administration policy in Iraq -- and that failure is the only one that matters. Sporadic, occasional successes on the ground won't do jack for U.S. interests in the region. We invaded; we actually need to effect a concrete "win". Definition of "win" = The militias need to be disarmed and politically neutered. The electricity, gas, water ans sewers need to work, 24/7, 365 days a year. IEDs and mine fields need to be cleared, schools need to reopen, and the population must be able to go about its business free of fear of murder, rape and kidnapping. Perpetual stalemate won't cut it.
Gee, a slightly hopeful, not-horrendous report came out about Iraq, I wonder if Glenn Greenwald will say it's a lie? -- Pocoroba
No. He will demonstrate that a slightly improved Iraq is still a foreign policy disaster for the U.S., and a personal disaster for many 10s of thousands of people. Therefore, Iraq is a loss for us.
-
Failure, the inevitable by-product of Phariseeism and Pomposity
[Read the article: Kit Bond and the credibility of war supporters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]....and the best interests of both us and the Iraqis foremost in your minds.
It would require the rememberance [sic] of clamoring for the administration to change course. But that wasn't sincere. Some of you folks insisted that the Iraqis were better off with a murdering dictator and his sons. Real torture was better than faux torture. How could you? -- shooter242Bucking for the Glenn Close role in Sunset Boulevard, eh? Are you ready for your close up, darling?
The best interests of the United States of America are not served by Bush's Iraq War, and they never have been. Even the most Machiavellian Realpolitik foreign policy in the Mideast could not make it so. Our best chance to rewrite history there hinged on successful defeat of Al Qa'ida in Afghanistan. Defeat = capture and/or killing both Usama Bin Laden and his entire core of command, and completely crippling his organization. Allowing it to regroup and reassemble in Waziristan was unacceptable. Anything we do in the Arab heartland of the Near East is undone by this little Republican, uhmmmm, oversight.
The federal government of the United States exists to promote our general welfare and interests. Under Bush and the Republican Congress it failed to do so. It failed in part, because of the mendacity & self-indulgence of Senators who simply can't or won't take their duties seriously enough to be worthy of the honor and responsibility of high office.
-
2 Admirable pieces of legislation sponsored by Bond ...
[Read the article: Kit Bond and the credibility of war supporters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...To be fair, Senator Bond is taking at least one [...] step towards addressing the damage this occupation has done to our troops:
http://proctoringcongress.blogspot.com/2007/07/there-is-travesty-occurring-in-our.html
-- Iokannan in the Well
It's not the only time he's done something laudable: http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_04_23/article4.html. From the article:
The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on Sept. 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist “incident,” if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of “public order,” or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations....
The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” [...] Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from “Insurrection Act” to “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” [and] expands the list to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition”—and such “condition” is not defined or limited.[...] Senators Leahy and Kit Bond (R-Mo.) are sponsoring a bill to repeal the changes,... -
Honestly curious
[Read the article: What were the pre-2005 "other intelligence activities"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...What arguable excuse is there for continuing to conceal from Americans what our government did? Whatever it was they were doing is unquestionably illegal. It has been abandoned for years now, removing any "national security" justification for ongoing secrecy. -- Glenn Greenwald
Why did you make this categorical statement? I don't mean to ask you to change how you presented this issue. I hate sounding like a conspiracy-loving paranoid; they are loud enough in your letters section that I don't need to add to the din. But, why assume that other assorted illicit surveillance programs have ceased? We have zero data one way or another, and no reason to trust this Administration. Their stonewalling strongly suggests that they may fear disruption of ongoing illicit surveillance programs.