Letters to the Editor
Derbig Mooser
Published Letters: 1587
-
@bamage
[Read the article: Bush and McCain's shared foreign policy approach]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]FWIW, I think Digby's FU was a bit... gratuitous
bamage
Thank you so much, I needed that. That was one FU that hurt! And the fact that I am being so misconstrued, well that's a bit of a chancre, too, (if that's the word I want) a scab I'd like to pick at some more.
Okay, let's say Obama, or Hilary says:
"Generals, of course we can't precipitously pull out, and we will win if we can, but in the meantime there are certain things we are doing that I don't want to do, and are wrong, and should fix, even without a fightus interruptus." These are, she says:
" 1) Stop Loss, can we do without it? the vet's organisations are on me, and it makes for all kinds of bad stories.
2) The detainee policy. Could you get that straightened out, try them or release them or treat them a little better while you got 'em.
3) The ROE- make 'em consistent, and get them obeyed! I don't need any more Hadithas." That's what Hillary (or Obama) asks.
Doesn't even ask for a Declaration of War, so the war is, in fact a war and not a "war".
What is the Army gonna say: "No, Ms. Clinton, can't be done, if you are gonna do it, even for a week longer, you gotta do it the way we've been doing it up til now.
Hillary listens, and says: "Generals, I guess you know best. Carry on, you go on fighting, and I'll go on ending the "war".
By next week, TNRonline, is asking Hillary (or Obama) to be impeached for all the same things they were defending Bush for right up til Inaugaration day!
And BTW how are we supposed to feel about it? Do we now approve of stop-loss, and indefinite detention?
This same principle seems to be clear to everyone where it concerns surveillance. What are we always saying? "If a Democrat did this, wow, would they get hammered!"
How does that not apply to the war?
You can't hear Shooter et al? Kvetching like hell, screaming "Hilary is holding our own men prisoner!"(Stop loss) "Hilarry wants to coddle those terrorist suspects!" (detainee policy) etc. Right down to Hillary wants to screw our guys out of their disability, if she continues Bush's vet policies. When has making a hairpin turn (no Hillary joke intended) ever bothered them.
It's sort of like taking a job as President of the Mafia, in order to clean it up and make it a law abiding business. By the time you've signed the first papers the accountant puts in front of you, you've committed five felonies. And now you're in it.
I think Obama, or Hilarry, is too smart to get caught like that, and we shouldn't ask them too.
-
@RMP
[Read the article: Bush and McCain's shared foreign policy approach]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One thing Derbig that you can’t know unless you have served is how the vast majority in our armed foreces are truly professional, competent, selfless and dedicated to our nation and its ideals.
RMP
Why, RMP? Do they keep it a secret? Why isn't it obvious to all?
Okay, Obama and stop loss.
Obama stops stop-loss, and the right-wing lands on him with both boots: "He's trying to weaken our forces! He might as well be a terrorist! All the guys I talk to love stop loss! Why, the opportunities and training and promotion and high pay they would have missed!" cut to interview with grateful-to-be-stop-lossed soldier.
Choice two, Obama asks the pentagon and decides we need to keep stop-loss, to get out of the war. TNRonline, in one week will say "OBAMA IS KEEPING OUR FIGHTING MEN PRISONER" and go on to say that stop loss is no longer needed and should be abolished. And now the interview with an expert who tells us why.
Are am I getting any closer to explaining it?
-
@bystander
[Read the article: Bush and McCain's shared foreign policy approach]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You have my grateful appreciation, for being just about the first person to bother, or rather attempt, to engage with and answer my questions. Whether you did it out of interest, or pity for the state I've been reduced to, I am grateful. Thanks.
-
@bystander
[Read the article: Bush and McCain's shared foreign policy approach]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]BTW. I, too, think Digby may have over-reacted
Sure, she told me to "fuck myself" told me to go elsewhere, and threatened to ban me. But she noticed me! Little ol' me! I think she likes me, and it's just her way of showing it. Next time, I'm gonna pull her pigtails, then go write "digby" in the sand with my big toe.
-
@Good Celery
[Read the article: Bush and McCain's shared foreign policy approach]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Derbig. You know we are to entertain each other?
God knows I try! Okay, okay, but give me points for tryin'!
Thanks for your response Mr. Celery. And you are, of course right, "shock 'n awe logic" isn't a good policy either.
Not that I would ever compare my blunderbuss, scattershot invective and self with the teamwork and precision weapons of America's Warriors on Terrors. I'd never do that.
Thanks.
-
Pseudilo-nymity-diddily, Friend as Ned might say.
[Read the article: Bush and McCain's shared foreign policy approach]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was hoping he would change it to, maybe Retired Military Gentleman, or RMP&G or maybe RNP/OG (Officer and Gentleman).
You know, like all those tremendous British colonial honorific initials KMG, CBE, CBO, and such. No wait! Inspiration arrives!
Just add an esq after RMP, thus RMP,esq.! Or abreviate it like &gent. Now that is fresh class on the half-shell, baby.
I'm not trying to pick on RMP he deserves all those and more. I'm just using his initials as an example of how we can all give our pseudonyms a little punch, a little class, a new angle. For instance, and I can't believe it took me this long to think of it, why am I not signing my name "Derbig Mooser, DFH". I think I've earned it.
I shouldn't be telling RMP what to do with his initials, but I will change my own, as soon as I figure out how. I will henceforce be known as Derbig Mooser, DFH et al.