Letters to the Editor
Ben Sen
Published Letters: 541 Editor's Choice: 98
-
Wolfowitz No McNamara
[Read the article: Wolfowitz's girlfriend problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is it possible to imagine Wolfowitz, like McNamara, later recanting his participation in the war?
Why not? Both men are "consumate" insiders in Washington, both men are considered "intellectuals" of a high order by the professional opinion makers, both have basically led thousands of soldiers to their death--not to forget the unmitigated havoc caused--a responsibility that one imagines would weigh heavily on a person's conscience--if they had a conscience.
(Oops--I mentioned the "c" word. I might no longer be considered objective.) How can a government official on this level be so ignorant and arrogant? What makes it possible? What honest, law abiding citizen, taught to believe in their country--would do such a thing--if they had a conscience?
The evidence just keeps stacking up about the neocons doesn't it? As predicted, it isn't really their enemies who are doing them in--it is their own characters--or lack thereof.
Remember the irony: THEY WERE BROUGHT INTO OFFICE ESPOUSING "RELIGIOUS" VALUES, which McNamara never did--and never would have condoned. If the message here isn't KEEP GOD OUT OF POLITICS, I don't know what it is.
Yet, given all this, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that the party who brought the country this bunch of frauds will not return to office in '08--and it is still a battle to keep much of the media from nitpicking the Democrats to death the way they did in '00 and '04.
How about a few more folks who have a conscience themselves getting on the same page now--before it's too late? It no longer matters who the Dem is--it just matters this pack of thieves be sent back where they came from once and for all, and those who elected them think twice before they pull the lever next time.
-
The Missing Word
[Read the article: Paul Wolfowitz's fatal weakness]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The article does not name the "weakness!"
The missing word is arrogance. Wolfowitz did at the World Bank (or tried to do) what he did as an insider in the White House--get his way for whoever or whatever he wanted.
He is the perfect example of a political thug so embolded by his success he thought he could get away with it anywhere. Blatantly favoring someone you're sleeping with is a fool's game no matter where you try it--but at the World Bank?
Given this was broadly and entirely the right wing's public case against Clinton makes it downright blasphemous to any higher purpose for government than personal gain. It is hard to believe they could be so thickheaded--but the truth speaks for itself.
The incident provides a new respect for the professionals at the Bank, and the common sense of those world leaders who have said: "Time to teach these American bullies some manners."
The greater lesson is what it says about who the neo-cons are as personalities, and what potential dangers they represent to the country if they are allowed to return to power. Who are the men who created this movement? (I might actually buy that book.)
In the end, of course, it is primarily only of interest to those who look at these matters with some measure of fairness and morality--which is in increasingly short supply in a country in the midst of a neo-colonial regression.
-
Dismissing the Other Side Isn't the Answer
[Read the article: The stone is cast]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is a mistake to be overly dismissive of Jerry Falwell, despite the fact there is no question he used religion to gain political power.
A country gets the leaders it deserves, and that is especially true of religious leaders whose only authority rests in the people they can convince of their lies. That needs to be taken seriously--not reduced to insignificance.
Alan Wolfe's case is not on firm ground since it can be easily argued that Falwell's "Moral Majority," was the basis for the movements that grew out of it--even if it played out. It is fundamentalism itself that needs to be examined--and in a way that shows how easily it can be usurped by charlatans such a Falwell, Robertson--and who can forget Tammy Faye and her man?
They have not in fact lost power in recent decades, but gained it. America is a sitting duck for them--and always has been. The level of dialogue in this country on religious matters is so shallow it isn't any wonder. All the rattling sabers is what gets tiresome.
As recently as last year, when Bill Moyer's introduced a program on PBS that had writer's speak personally about their "faith" or lack of it, I recall the reviews in the NYTIMES and other MSM were hostile--as if any discussion on religion is hopeless and should be avoided. (I'm not sure blogland is much better, though Salon often has good articles, and excellent discussions.)
I think the preaching on all sides is a waste of time, and simplistic attempts to explain the other side out of existence are a mistake.