Letters to the Editor
fetzermillsjr
Published Letters: 13
-
Fine piece
[Read the article: Memorial Day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you for writing your piece. You are absolutely correct in your statement that soldiers don't get to choose their wars. That is extremely important to remember.
The troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today are magnificent. They're undersupplied, underequipped and with a couple off noteable exceptions have been poorly led by careerist general officers. They've been repeatedly betrayed by the civilian leadership. Yet, they continue to re-enlist and go back for repeated deployments.
Civilians who have never served owe a particular debt of gratitude to those who chose to put their lives on the line and consequently lost them.
And to Axon who would so blithely send young people to war against Iran and speaks of "political will", what war did you serve in?
-
Matthews and Chickenhawks
[Read the article: Chris Matthews on Fred Thompson's sexiness and smells]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am a Middle-East veteran. I enlisted when I was 17 and got out when I was 21. Chickenhawks incense me. No one who serves on active duty for any amount of time can come out unscathed, in peacetime or war. Serving in the military is a sacrifice for everyone who serves honorably, in years if nothing else. You also have to sacrifice a part of yourself to Mars. You never get that part back.
My worst nightmare was losing one of my guys. I was lucky and never did. I still have nightmares about losing one of them.
I am extraordinarily suspicious of non-veteran politicians and their spokespeople who refer to the politicians' "public service". If they're not veterans, I don't think they have any idea of what service is. You literally surrender your life to the U.S. government for the term of your enlistment. That's sacrifice.
I am opposed to the war in Iraq and have been since it became apparent we were going to invade and I'm a Yellow-Dog Democrat and I was an Arabic linguist in the Navy. So, since they've impugned my patriotism and my party's, I feel compelled to seek redress. My unpatriotic, effeminate, Democratic ass challenges the Republican Manly Men presidential candidates to a no-rules cage match. I'll fight you two at a time. The cage is so you can't run like Bush did on 9/11 and like you all did during Vietnam, except McCain. I'm only 6' 1" and 165 lbs. Also, as a feature attraction I'd like to fight Chris Matthews and Bill O'Reilly at the same time. And Sean Hannity and Glen Beck. Also, administration mouthpieces Joe Klein and Howard Fineman.
I'd also like to fight Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, because they have the Manliest Mouths among the Manly Men and they're so tough and Manly.
I know it's immature to fight and violence never solves anything, but issuing this challenge is the Manly thing to do, because fighting (war in other words) is Manly in and of itself.
The prize will be another Manly thing. Torture. If any of them can take me out, they get to torture me, in a very Manly way of course. But, if I beat them, I get to torture them until I get the right answers. I have a list started.
1.) What is my drivers license number?
2.) What is the name of the first girl I ever kissed?
3.) Why is there air?
4.) What are the middle two digits of my social security number?
5.)If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?
-
The GOP is the party of the Iraq war
[Read the article: The GOP is the party of the Iraq war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I believe that Glen Greenwald is correct when he states than any Republican who hopes to win their party's nomination will have to embrace the war in Iraq. However, I think his support of the war is a major factor in his campaign's implosion for several reasons.
I think it cost him money. McCain has always been a darling of the small libertarian faction within the Republican party, Independents and disaffected Democrats. Most members of those groups are extremely disenchanted with the war. I imagine a good bit of his financial support came from those sources in 2000. That well went dry.
He had a free-pass with the press in 2000. He was the "straight talker", the "maverick" and the coverage by MSM was adoring and uncritical. I don't recall anyone dredging up the inconvenient fact that McCain was one of the Keating 5, which kind of belied the way he was portraying himself as the last honest candidate. But the S&L scandal was long ago and nobody remembers. But McCain's Baghdad shopping trip and his unstinting support of the war makes it impossible for the press to portray him as a). honest or b.) sane. It's impossible for him to be both. He no longer has the "man on horseback" factor working for him. That's hurt his poll numbers and his fundraising, I'd imagine.
Campaigns rely heavily on volunteers. Presidential campaigns field small armies of them and that means students, retirees and housewives. Those demographics aren't right for a man who is the most vocal congressional supporter of the war. If you don't have volunteers, you have to spend money, and even that can't make up for the lack of "boots on the ground."
McCain's war support has also cost him an important constituency with an extraordinarily high participation rate, veterans and the active-duty military.
I don't think McCain would have received the Republican nomination, either way, for the reasons Glen Greenwald cited. He and his advisors had to have been aware that his candidacy would have a difficult time getting through the Republican primary season.
His campaign strategy was devised a number of years ago and I imagine the strategy depended on extraordinarily large numbers of Independents and Democrats crossing over to vote for him in the Republican primaries. When the strategy was devised, they probably had no idea public opinion on the war would head south as precipitously as it did. Now he's damned if he do, and he's damned if he don't.
Sincerely//Fetzer Mills, Jr.