Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
paulw
Published Letters: 27 Editor's Choice: 1
That the Republicans are crying out for bipartisanship is, as Conason points out, entirely predictable. What is so disturbing is how average working Americans fall for it. The conservatives have had their way for twelve plus years now and we can all see the results, a foreign policy completely out of step with reality and domestic policies that favor the wealthy.
Ronald Reagan was famous for saying “Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.” So in other words, according to Reagan (and those who followed), our grand experiment in democracy, government of the people, by the people, and for the people is a complete failure. Bush and the neocons have taken this attitude to its logical conclusion, as evidenced by this administration’s handling of Katrina. To these people, government is nothing more than a tool to increase their wealth. So the question is; how do you compromise with such people? Where is the middle ground that the pundits and the moderates are so desperate to find?
Conason correctly points out that there are very real differences between Democrats and Republicans but it’s the similarities that prove to be more important. Each party gets its money from the same place. Each party is beholden to the same people. The fact of the matter is we need more partisanship not less.
The "they're not real Muslims" argument is neither remarkable or new. The same argument is used by Christians all the time when inconvenient truths are raised. Like when you point out groups such as the "God Hates Fags" group, it's not uncommon at all to hear that "they're not real Christians". And it's the same story if you bring up the brutality of the Crusades or the Inquisition. This form of denial is not unique to Muslims at all, it's present among all ideologues regardless of the particular dogma they adhere to.
Likewise is the hedging when it concerns some central tenet of their faith. That's simply classic "ends justify the means logic" to which our very Christian president subscribes to. It concerns Bush not, that he had to lie to start the war in Iraq. He was so completely certain invading Iraq was the right thing to do that it didn't matter to him at all how he would go about doing it.
It's pointless to apologize for or try to rationalize this behavior. The real lesson is for us all to reject dogma regardless of it's form.
I agree with Bush, but not for the same reasons. Why is it that only smokers should pay for this increase? We're all responsible for our nation's children and we all should pay for it.
It's truly amazing to see things like this. It reminds me off a caller to a local radio talk show. The discussion was also about FISA and the caller was saying that we needn't be concerned with the government spying on us because "any time now someone is going set of a nuke in New York harbor," (paraphrasing).
Yes we truly are the "land of the *free* and the home of the *brave*"
This piece of twisted logic has been floating around for at least a couple of years now and it still doesn't make any sense.
It's been less than seven years since 9/11 but it was eight years between the first World Trade Center attack and 9/11. So using their logic, we must have been perfectly safe, without a care on 9/11.
--Paul
"Maybe the fall of this horrifying regime would serve as an example to all the other despotisms in the neighborhood" - Josef Joffe
This is one of the more despicable and frankly, racist rationalizations for going to war. When Libya forfeited its nuclear weapons program, this exact same rationalization was used, "see, invading Iraq caused a dictator to give up his wmd's"
But what this says is that it's okay to invade a sovereign nation, destroy its infrastructure and kill hundreds of thousands of its citizens because some other country poses a threat to you.
One can only accept this type of thinking if they fundamentally undervalue the lives of people other than themselves.
We use the generals to explain what is happening on the ground and why.
Even if were true that the generals were "apolitical" and used only after the war had begun, it would still represent a failure on the media's part to provide the public with the whole picture. Since when are just tactics the only relevant discussion during the war? The "conditions on the ground" can speak volumes about the strategic realities as well.
The Iraq war was a perfect example of this. When things started to turn bad in Iraq (pretty much from the beginning), it rapidly became clear that not only were there grave errors in the prosecution of the war, but also in the justifications for the war to begin with.
In the final analysis, in an actual functioning democracy, there is no point before, during or after a war where discussion of any aspects are "irrelevant."
Marriage began as a religious ritual and as such, should never have been codified into law, and that religious officials are able to perform a legal function is a clear violation of the constitution. But now that it law, it's no longer under religious control but rather, is a matter of public policy and therefore subject to equal protection.
The ironic thing is; if the people to whom this matter is so important (the religious right), had kept marriage within the confines of their religion, they would be able to discriminate against whomever they pleased, with the full backing of the constitution.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
