Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 950 Editor's Choice: 102
Bush and his crowd are willing to lie virtually non-stop to keep the US on a path that guarantees large profits to the oil and war industry. Yet this state of affairs is not in the mainstream public debate - even though over half the population would probably consider this administration dangerous to our national security.
So my question is: when do headlines on CNN and the New York times start probing, directly, the wisdom of allowing such a clearly pathological executive to remain in power? Judging from the past, my guess is only when some "credible" source (e.g. Democrats or a major organization) starts calling for impeachment -- that is to say, they'll never ask the question.
You write:
... and, at the time, the people of the state of New York overwhelmingly wanted her to vote yes. Yes, they were all wrong, but she was doing her job. We can't complain when our legislators ignore us and then complain when they don't.
So where's the room for leadership? I thought the reason we have a Republic instead of a Democracy was that our leaders could keep informed about that which their constituents could keep up with. Yes, they represent us, but not as substitutes for direct democracy.
I'd also like to pick a bone with the poster who claims that it is irresponsible to call a vote for the war anything more that bad judgment. Close to a million people are dead who otherwise would have been alive (not all direct casualties, but certainly indirect); a once relatively modern and secular Middle East state is in religious civil war; and all of this was predicted by the current President's father and any number of experts before the war. On the WMD issue in particular, there were a number of experts -- including Hans Blix -- who claimed the administration claims were bullshit. True, no one could prove conclusively that Iraq had no WMD whatsoever, but we can't prove that conclusively about any nation -- are we going to threaten or attack everyone who doesn't like us with the same lame excuse?
...I'd like to see a grassroots movement form that demands from every Democratic candidate a pledge to renounce the newly acquired powers of the Executive Branch as their first act in office.
I'll just abandon all my principles and my democratic will to prop up someone I do not trust or admire just because I hate Karl Rove. Boy, the kind of democracy you Clinton folks embrace is just brimming with freedom.
Whom do I despise and how do I act like them?
I think it was your letter that sent me on that message and you are correct, I misrepresented your statements.
You were correct too that not everyone knew there were no WMD, a statement that I would never dispute.
While I agree with you that folks should not have voted for the resolution for all the reasons you cite, I would like to clarify what I meant by suggesting that it's not bad judgment, and maybe push back a little. I don't think there was any judgment at all on the merits. I think there was bad behavior -- e.g. pure political calculation. I reckon that most people voting (including more than a few "no" votes) was based on how members expected that vote to play out later. Moreover, while not everyone knew there were no WMD, anyone paying attention, and that should include all members of Congress, did had all the evidence they needed to know -- know -- that Bush could not be trusted at all. His approval rating had dropped to 55% or something like that before 9/11, in less than a year after taking office, mainly because of his extreme ideological agenda that was in stark contrast to every principle on which he campaigned (not to mention, members of Congress should have known his record before President). So I reiterate, it wasn't bad judgment either, it was an absolute abdication of any judgment at all -- dereliction would be closer to the truth, but still then it doesn't fully encapsulate the negligence in my view.
My apologies for misrepresenting you. I think I had lumped your post in with others that were only in partial agreement and that's not bad judgment either -- just plain irresponsibility.
skyeman is right. The number of civilians dead as a direct result of US munitions might be 50K or thereabouts, but even that is almost certainly low. As far as total dead Iraqis who would be alive today if we hadn't invaded, that number is got to be near or above 1 million (probably well over when you factor in no hospitals, no clean water, etc.).
If hiring an auto mechanic, would you care if s/he smoked? Would you care if s/he knew all about cars and engines?
It seems in our democracy, the more important the job the less important the relevant qualifications. And we wonder why government doesn't seem to work for the people.
I am mixed about this post. I know and love EFF, and applaud their action. But this post is a clear-cut promotion of an advocacy organization's press release. There is no content here other than that EFF filed an FOIA request that may, or may not, be honored. Such FOIA requests are made all the time by groups like ACLU, PFAW, and FOE. The post links only to the EFF press release and gives no information about what's being hidden or the ramifications or chances of EFF success.
Again, I honestly admire EFF, and am pleased to see them get their message out. But in the interest of independent journalism, I question Salon's decision to so blatantly promote PR from another entity. If this is okay, how is the distribution of "news" packaged by groups less honest than EFF any better? Do we judge on a case-by-case basis, or do we have principles?
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"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
