Letters to the Editor
JKP1000
Published Letters: 160 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Imagine not being scared
[Read the article: Jihadis throw a wild bash over the Protect America Act]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I’ve thought for the past several years, as ‘fear’ and ‘being frightened’ have been the hallmark of every Republican speech, that the most obvious rebuttal the Democrats could make would be to point out that the Republican Party was the party of “fear”. Not fear-mongering, which assumes somehow that they’re in control and just using fear, but to paint them as the party of FEAR. Of being SCARED.
In other words, Barack Obama (should he be the candidate) should be constantly hammering home the point that for the past 7 years we’ve had a president who is AFRAID. Who’s consumed by FEAR. Who’s overwhelmingly FRIGHTENED. Not only would it put the GOP on the defensive to prove they’re not afraid – and to stop boasting about fear as acceptable behavior among adults - but fear is such a basic part of the Republican ideology, regardless of 9/11, that the American people should be reminded of it constantly by the Democrats.
Saying things like, “Imagine having a president who’s not afraid. Who will face this country’s challenges without being scared. Who governs from a place of confidence, not of fear”.. or.. “My Republican challenger is very afraid, ladies and gentlemen. At a time when we cannot afford to be afraid. We need strong leaders. As Americans we need a leader who is not frightened.”
When you think about it logically, a political party that uses ‘fear’ and ‘being frightened’ as their strength is extremely bizarre. It should be turned on them, used to deride them, to laugh at them, to mock them for being overwhelmed by America’s enemies.
-
McCain: Dead Man Walking
[Read the article: McCain's risky strategy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The only way McCain can win - and it's a HUGE if - is if Hillary gets the nomination and continues to polarize the left. But even at that, the anti-Hillary forces are nowhere near as fired up as the anti-Republican forces. Only the media pretends those forces are equal. It's not just Bush that's deeply despised, it's everything ‘Republican’ that the American majority wants removed.
McCain is basically a dead-man walking. He's in the same position Walter Mondale was in back in 1980. Everything he represents - from his out-of-touch ideology to the man he wants to succeed - are viewed overwhelming as negatives by the American people. But America wasn’t spinning wildly down-the-toilet, with a pointless and self-immolating war that weakened American security while bankrupting the nation and eviscerating the US dollar, under Jimmy Carter. Things haven’t been this bad in the United States in over 70 years. And talk of the boogey-man “terrorists” by the pathetic laughingstock in the White House appeals only to the most unhinged, “Islamacists-Will-Kill-Us-All” morons.
If the mainstream news media wasn’t in the business of spouting the GOP’s war-is-necessary, be-very-afraid, talking points, they’d realize that 9/11 is only seen as extremely relevant in 2008 by those with a vested, financial interest in using it to achieve their political goals. The American people have long since realized that if the Bush administration had no interest in getting Bin Laden, and that the most detrimental things that have happened to this country and it’s people in the past 7 years (from Iraq to Katrina to torture to removing Habeas Corpus, civil liberties, and constitutional “guarantees”) weren't coming from an outside force, that the biggest threat to this country and it’s people is obviously NOT in the Middle East – it’s on the TV regularly and is smirking at us.
-
No Response to 9/11
[Read the article: McCain: Threatening to bomb sovereign countries is "naive"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is baffling why the Democrats don't make more of the fact that nothing has ever been done to respond to the 9/11 attacks. Taking all the conspiracy theories out of the equation, the official story was that Saudi terrorists funded by Saudi dollars were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. So what has been our response? As George W Bush has shown repeatedly since the attacks, we go over to Saudi Arabia, kiss their leader, and walk hand in hand with him. Its grotesque that the USA has behaved as Saudi Arabia's bitch because of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And predictably, the media’s Tough Guy Warriors have no problem with the craven cowardice this administration, and the United States, has shown towards Saudi Arabia since 9/11.
If the USA had refused to respond to Pearl Harbor because Roosevelt had deep financial ties to Japan, would the American people, and in particular the opposition party, have just sat back and said nothing? And to not even POINT OUT that we should enforce the law (because, ya know, innocent people were murdered), and bring those responsible to justice?
The common expression heard immediately after the attacks was that we couldn’t have “pre-9/11 thinking”. Well, what was more pre-9/11 than the plan to attack Iraq? Those plans had been so set in stone by the neocons during the 90’s that they were one of the top issues for discussion, when the Republicans regained the White House, at Bush’s first cabinet meeting in January 2001, according to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill.
When the Democrats finally settle on a candidate, I would like this question to be asked, “Since nothing has ever been done to respond to the 9/11 attacks, what plans do you have to bring those responsible to justice?”