Letters to the Editor
James Levy
Published Letters: 135 Editor's Choice: 18
-
You must remember this is not the war they foolishly imagined
[Read the article: America's long Iraq nightmare]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am absolutely convinced that the Administration had a set of unrealistic hopes that they mistook for a strategy in Iraq. Therefore, when we complain (with cuase) about the handling of this thing, we are slightly off the mark because we assume that the Government was thinking "real world" when it made these mistakes. First and most important, they expected to kill Saddam Hussein within 24-48 hours of the opening of hostilities. They never really thought that they would have to occupy and govern Iraq. At best, the Iraqi military (whom we know US officials were in contact with) would step in, take over, "surrender", and then we would have our flag-raising ceremony over Saddam's Baghdad Palace and walk away with Iraq in the hands of trustworthy thugs on the CIA payroll. If we couln't find the right thugs, we'd import Chalabi, spread a load of cash and gold around (like we did in Afghanistan) and then "mission accomplished" and "four more years." When Rumsfeld said they weren't into nation building, he meant it. All they wanted was Saddam destroyed and an authoritarian regime in place that would keep the lid on the Shiites and more or less dance to Washington's tune. What tripped them up was the total collapse of the Iraqi regime (but no dead Saddam to parade around) and the inability to find any WMDs. Without the WMDs and with Saddam on the loose, Bush needed a new raison d'etre for this idiot, illegal invasion. Stung by criticism that the war was illegal and immoral, the government needed a counter, and fast. Bush found it in "democratization" and "de-Baathification" and a whole crazy-quilt of completely unrealistic goals--to create a free, democractic and secular Iraq friendly to Israel and our oil companies. That's what emerged in the vaccum after Iraq collapsed. And we couldn't walk away, because we didn't have a viable strongman or a coherent regime to hand things off to. Our mindless "shock and awe" had too completely smashed the infrastructure--political, military, social, economic--so that no real polity, not even a police state, remained. And that is why we are stuck there today.
-
Bush admitted he broke the law
[Read the article: PBS's "Frontline: Spying on the Home Front"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't know if you saw it, but I saw Bush admit that he had ordered wiretaps without consulting the FISA Court. Saw it on TeeVee. My God, Pelosi, the shithead admitted it on television. It's and Open and Shut case for impeachment. What could be the defense? "I thought I had a good reason to do it." Everyone who breaks the law thinks they have a good reason to do it. And if he says, "he had to; it was an emergency" then a) he's got to prove that in an open court called the US Senate, and b) even if they do, it doesn't mean anything because the FISA law allows the government to wiretap suspects IMMEDIATELY and then seek approval ex post facto (the Gov has 48 hours to call the court into session but can act immediately if they feel the situation warrents it). What Bush did was to order wiretaps and then ignore the law and the court so that they could continue without oversight. That is a breech of the law. That is way more than a "misdemeanor." How could anyone be fed such a fat pitch and then, not only not hit it out of the ballpark, but refuse to even swing at it?
-
Shooter, you punked out
[Read the article: PBS's "Frontline: Spying on the Home Front"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Neither the cops nor the DA nor the Judge asks you about "weighing" anything when you break the law. Either the president is under the law or he is a dictator. And you also punked out on the facts--the FISA law allows for IMMEDIATE wiretaps and EX POST FACTO approval. So why did the president break that law and ignore them OTHER THAN TO SET THE PRECEDENT THAT HE WAS ABOVE THE LAW. Answer, that one, and I'll take you seriously. Of course, you won't, because you'd like to live under a right-wing dictatorship.
-
I stand by our revolution
[Read the article: PBS's "Frontline: Spying on the Home Front"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Live free or die." I am not afraid of terrorists. I live in New York, and am, I bet, a damn lot more likely to be the object of a terrorist attack than most people here. I demand that I live as a free amn in a free country. Let the shitheads take their best shot--wait a minute, they did, on 9/11. Ask New Yorkers if they want to let the President take away their freedoms. You won't like the answer. Because we are not intimidated. We are not shaking in our boots. We don't need to be led around by a jackass faux-cowboy from Connecticut. I'll take the risk of terrorist attack as a cost of living as a free man. Once, it would have been obvious to any American man that there was no doubt about that choice. It was too obvious. Ask my dad, a WWII vet--he'll tell you. He understood that you have to risk your safety if you want to be free. Perhaps that's liberal. I thought it was classically conservative.
-
I find it interesting...
[Read the article: The administration's FISA falsehoods continue unabated]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]that the President swears [or affirms] to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" but not specifically the people of the United States? Might this imply that the President, before he take any action that might "protect" us or "save American lives" first and foremost obey the provisions of the Constitution including the First and Fourth Amendments? I sure think so.