Letters to the Editor
Ben Sen
Published Letters: 541 Editor's Choice: 98
-
A Dead Rat
[Read the article: Iranian regime change: "Faster, please!"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How can Michael Ledeen be an "expert" if nothing he says adds anything that can't be garnered from reading the average newspaper and Sunday supplement?
I don't get it.
How can he be called a Neocon if his views are so tepid, and he denies he wanted war in Iraq?
I don't get it.
How can he deny responsibility for the positions he is generally thought to hold when asked about them--yet hold the interviewer responsible for not understanding him better?
I don't get it.
Why doesn't he enlighten us if he knows so much about Iran, instead of simply defend whether he has been right or wrong in the past?
I don't get it.
How can everybody else be so wrong, and he be so right?
I think I smell a dead rat.
-
A Different Age than Viet Nam
[Read the article: Where's the outrage?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I like Gary Kamiya's fighting spirit.
He fails to mention, however, how the media has been controlled by this administration. Since Viet Nam, the hawks have "adapted" and sent out the message that if you go too far--you lose access. The media has been co-opted, and bears responsibility.
Also, there is the internet--which I believe is acting as a palliative. Look at this discussion. There is, if nothing else, the sense of "freedom" and there has been some action as well. I think this is where the "protestors" of today are hanging out. They haven't been able to control cyberspace, at least not yet--or to our knowledge.
I am afraid this "protest" is now in the hands of the Congress. If that last election didn't send them a message, I don't know what will--perhaps a landslide in '08.
The great hope is in more Americans seeing what the Neocon agenda has led too. An invasion of Iran would no doubt be even more disastrous than the invasion of Iraq, and lead to a call for the draft, which after the election does not appear possible.
It could well be, as Gary suggests, a time to pour it on--at least until Bush is removed from office.
-
REAL POLITICS
[Read the article: Make no mistake: He's running]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I understand the role of a journalist to support the ideals of democracy in reporting on those who seek to run this country, but there is no way you can convince me someone with so little experience would make a good president. By the time Barack figured out where the men's room was, his first term would be over.
Would you want a doctor who never performed surgery to try to replace your heart, or a pilot who only flew once to transport your family?
Sorry. It is a mark of the misdirected idealism and utter frustration of those who disagree with what's going on that has gotten Obama this far--that and a pretty face and a pocket full of platitudes. A President has to be more than a figurehead, regardless of how pretty a figure he has.
The arguement that it is because he has so little exposure and "committment" that makes him a good candidate makes little if any sense. I want to know who I am voting for--just like I want to know the credentials of anyone I put trust in.
The closet issue is Hillary at this point, and while I will undoubtedly vote for any Democrat, I think the battle is with the fantasists who are too self-rightious to vote for anybody they don't know, rather than somebody they do know. If you think Hillary can't get elected because she is a woman--do you honestly believe Obama is a better choice as an African American? How about getting "real" now--rather than later.
If more supposedly "liberal" voters grew up, and practiced SOLIDARITY rather than chased after "stars" the country wouldn't be in the mess it's in now. The problem is they won't compromise--like so many of Dean's supporters in the last election.
They helped put Bush in office for a second term just as much as the fundamentalists, and need to be called out on it.
-
More Than Words and Smiles
[Read the article: Make no mistake: He's running]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Since I generally appreciate his posts, I'm going to address Dr. Zachary Smith directly.
Position papers, regardless of how "correct" they are and appeal to your positions (or mine as well), charitable committments, lots of experience in midwestern state politics, a good education, the ability to always smile at the camera, and a charismatic personality that helps win elections is not even close to the skill and outright cunning it takes to be an effective politician in the current milieu.
I'd rather have somebody who looked and talked like a duck who got "real" things done, and has proven it than the latest gladhander. The only pol I've known in the last fifty years who has had both qualities has been Bill Clinton--and I am simply not so sure genius (in politics or anything) is that common.
I don't see anybody making the case for any piece of legislation that Obama has promoted, or a tough position he has taken and fought for despite the odds that even comes close, say, to Hillary Clinton's fight for health care. Even if it failed, it showed the kind of guts that tells me what I want to know. Given the resources you claim, correct me if I am wrong--and I am willing to be wrong.
I want somebody I know who doesn't just dream and express a "new" agenda, but has the very specific and exacting skill it takes to make it happen. I can't see voting for somebody for president because he loves his wife, kids, "God" and comes up with the "right" platform without much evidence it isn't all just a pile of words and smiles.