Letters to the Editor
Ben Sen
Published Letters: 539 Editor's Choice: 97
-
Is It Time?
[Read the article: Generation Dem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, the election was seismic, but there is no way you can tell me it was enough, or that it couldn't go up in a puff of fear mongering.
Sidney Blumenthal speak professionally of Rove, but I'm not sure a strategy that relies on prejudice, bias, and the destruction of our civil liberties and right to privacy merits it. "The darkness around us is deep," said the poet William Stafford, and the darkness has seeped into the fabric of the national consciousness.
The re-election of Bush in '04, when the writing was on the wall, could have been the wake-up call for those who opted out of the political system most of their lives, thereby capitulating to the very forces they rebelled against in their youth.
It's been a nightmare for those of us who saw it and counselled moderation in the anti-war movement, yet couldn't get through to the "crazies" who turned out to be the majority. They made politics and government itself the enemy, rather than ideology, so the far end of the spectrum has ruled by default ever since.
I think that is who came back in this election, shocked once again to be confronted by a war without a purpose, and their children who are starting to wake-up. We've had only one president in our lifetime--Clinton. Carter has proven himself more out of office than when he was in.
The cost of the arrogance of the boomers has been high, and the question now is whether they can sustain this return to reality so a few worthy advances can be made before the jig is up. Yes, it has a cultural component, it always does.
The questions only begin after the war is over. Will the Dems prove worthy to the task of saving social security? Will the military dominance of the budget be reduced enough so the richest country on earth can supply health insurance to its citizens? Will some sanity be brought to bear on these moral issues--and the government become the protector of our freedoms, rather than "big brother" telling us how we are supposed to live?
That is the short list. That's the starters. That's what solidarity can do--and if the Dems can't do it--a party needs to be created that will.
-
Viet Nam Redux
[Read the article: No graceful exit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Walter Shapiro is the first I've seen to make the case for the Republican interest in stopping the war--now that it's been made clear the electorate wants out. It's especially telling that Newt has joined the chorus. I agree the longer the administration takes to exticate themselves, the more the GOP will pay for it in '08.
I don't agree with the cynics that the Iraq Report doesn't matter--or that it's being watered down in order to be unanimous makes a big difference. More significant is the simple fact that it takes umbrage with the administration, and can't be dismissed for partisan reasons. (Though they already made the case they are unqualified.) If Iraq is like Viet Nam in this regard, it is the accumulation of "anti-war" documentation and consensus that will force the militarists to back down. Next comes the hearings.
What is not addressed here, or much elsewhere, is the fact that the withdrawal can't be unilateral. That is how they got into the war, but if it is also the way they get out it will be too obvious an error at this point. I'm still not clear from the leaked material what the report will say on the matter, but clearly the time for diplomacy is at hand. That in and of itself is "eating crow," given the corner they've painted themselves into. Does the Bush administration have anyone even capable of the job? That's worth asking.
We know from the latest trip Bush's relationship with Maliki is no more than a public relations ploy. I feel that is true of his relationship with every world leader, including Tony Blair and Putin. He's made himself and the US the enemy of Iran and Syria, and doesn't have the skill to turn it around. Rice has severly compromised herself with her syncophancy. Nobody appears anywhere within the administration who has a smattering of statesmanship. This is the problem for an "old boy" government. The only one qualified was Colin Powell, and he moved out. That leaves Baker...the peacemaker.
Don't get sucked in by the semantics and myopia of Washington, Walter, keep your eye on the long ball. I was never a big fan of Kissinger, (not that I'm suggesting him) but it's Viet Nam redux, and the stage is being set. The questions are: who is the potential receiver, and how long is it going to take?
-
A Shaky Deck
[Read the article: A vote for more cooked intelligence?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The problem with filling these positions is finding someone who isn't tainted politically, or in some other way, but still has the background. Most recently, it was the General who now leads the CIA.
If Gates had not chosen to be in the Iraq Study Group, I think it would be a different matter. This way he was privy to information not spun by the administration, generals, or government bureaucrats. (Bolten, however, is another matter.) A relationship with Baker, given his ascendancy, doesn't work against him either.
With the cards now on the table, the Dems most telling action is which ones they pick up. Taking a pass on Gates may show the kind of discretion that pays dividends later. The mere fact that he is not a member of the inner circle, such as it is or was, may be all that is necessary to facilitate the fall of Bush's shaky deck.