Letters to the Editor
Margalis
Published Letters: 614 Editor's Choice: 16
-
I would love to see "choosing victory" addressed directly
[Read the article: Gen. Odom explains basic reality to Hugh Hewitt and the "Victory Caucus"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The neo-con argument now is that you can simply choose victory, and that the American public, Iraqis and Democrats are not choosing to win.
Not that you can *earn* victory through hard work, sacrifice and careful planning. Just wishing on a star is enough. Just like you can fly to the moon if you flap your arms hard enough.
'Choosing Victory' was the title of the surge plan IIRC.
The idea that you can win if you just want to bad enough is absurd. Wanting is not enough, but wanting is all the neo-cons can propose. That is why they don't want to debate the surge plan. The plan cannot be defended based on its own merits, because the plan at its core is more of the same and nothing else. Pure wishful thinking.
I'm sick of being told that we have to choose to win, that *wanting* to win is enough. I want to win!
Tell me *how* we can win! Prove that we *can* win! Come up with a plan that makes sense. Show that we can execute.
Our Iraq war has been equal parts horrible planning and wretched execution. We can't win with that approach no matter how hard we try. Winning a war isn't the equivalent of checking a checkbox or deciding what pair of pants to wear that day. It isn't a simple choice.
---
To Joe: Nobody is saying we should listen to Odom because he is automatically correct. We are saying he made some good points. He said that more people die in Iraq now than under Saddam - that is a factual statement that is either true or false, not an opinion.
You may disagree with the conclusion, but his argument is based on a factual claim. If you want to dispute that claim with some counter-fact feel free.
When Glenn said you were using a cowardly rhetorical device he meant your "some would say...". Who is "some" and why should we listen to them? Are *you* saying that? Are you agreeing with those "some"?
Why should we care what those un-named "some" would say without any argument or even an explicit admission that you agree with those "some"? Let those "some" speak for themselves. Or if you agree with their argument, make the argument for them.
If you think military opinions are less valuable in Iraq, say so and explain why.
But really that is entirely beside the point anyway.
-
daleyrocks you almost have a point
[Read the article: Gen. Odom explains basic reality to Hugh Hewitt and the "Victory Caucus"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are 100% correct that not supporting the war does not also imply support for an immediate troop pullout.
However you are indicting all "progressivists" without naming names or providing any quotes to back up your assertions.
Anyone who stated that 70% of Americans support an immediate pullout is probably incorrect. (I would have to do more digging into poll data that you did not provide, but I will take your at your word for purposes of this discussion)
So point it out to the people who said that! They might apologize and correct themselves for a simple mistake, or they may make some counter-argument - or they may dodge the issue. It isn't clear who specifically you are addressing though.
What I would like to see from you is this:
1) Links or citations to the poll data you mention.
2) Links, citations and quotes from those who have made the mistaken claims you mention.
The fringe of anything is usually off the mark. However it is the fringe right that has dictated our actions up to now. As Glenn points out, they have the ear of the administration. That is why Glenn spends time on neo-cons and not on say liberal bloggers - some may be off the mark but they don't have the ear of the administration. (Glenn addressed this very point in letters to an earlier piece)
I'll worry more about the fringe left when the left as a whole is a major part of the decision-making process.
-
Wait those quotes are real?
[Read the article: Gen. Odom explains basic reality to Hugh Hewitt and the "Victory Caucus"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thought Jim was just making those up as examples of what DR might say! He actually said those thing?
LOL is all I can say about that. Credibility zero.
-
This is right wing talking points rephrased
[Read the article: Is there life after Bush?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Doesn't the right wing accuse people of...whatever they call it..."Bush Hating Syndrome" or something. This charicature of liberals as people who devote their lives to hating Bush is what the right wants people to believe.
When Bush is gone I'll do what I've always done in politics - think about how the government can make the country a better place and serve its citizens.
"What to do with the rest of our lives"? How breathless. As if there are many people who have nothing to live for otherwise.
-
Why is it acceptable...
[Read the article: "Look Both Ways"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...to say that most men are emotionally illiterate and uncommunicative, but not acceptable to say that women talk too much?
Maybe men communicate just the right amount.
Men don't say "I love you" enough, men don't talk about their feelings, men avoid commitment - we take these as givens for some reason. How about women pathetically need to hear "I love you" way too much, blabber endlessly about their feelings and are clingy - gee that sounds harsh! Why don't we take those as givens too?
For some reason it has become "common knowledge" that men are somehow broken in relationships while women are spotless and perfect. Our view of relationships seems defined almost solely by women.
Salon did a piece on this very subject (maybe a book review) a year or two ago.