Letters to the Editor
Westmiller
Published Letters: 74
-
The Nut of the Matter
[Read the article: Brian Williams' "response" to the military analyst story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Elena Nachmanoff ... Defense contracts, she adds, are "not our interest."
The fact is that the ONLY interest of NBC is defense contracts. Actually, they are a defense contractor, serving and supporting GE's military interests, investments, and profit with public propaganda. That is, from their perspective, the only right thing to do.
-
Parrots Can Speak Truth
[Read the article: Who needs Dana Perino when you have the NYT's Michael Gordon?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"... a track record of uncritically parroting administration positions... the defining attribute of a rank government propagandist ...
Absolutely true, but in this case, the Parrot is correct.
Iranians - or at least some cloistered official factions - are aiding the insurgency, as Nir Rosen confirms.
We could probably save billions by closing down the CIA and the NSA to just pay Rosen a handsome salary for reporting the facts of the matter.
The Quds forces are the exclusive domain of the 'Islamic Supreme Leader' [Ayatola], not the Iranian government itself. They are a few thousand radicals who do aid and train Shiite forces in Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere. Their funding and control is totally separate from any official Iranian government body.
That fact-of-the-matter has totally baffled occupation managers, since Iran is essentially supporting and defending the official Iraqi Shiite "government" that the U.S. put in place ... to such a degree that the elections, likely to be dominated by Iran-sympathetic Shiites, will have to be cancelled.
The bottom line is that it is our presence, our military occupation, that stands in the way of a stable Iraq that can exercise its own sovereignty. That's untenable, because Iran will exert more influence on an independent Iraq than the United States.
Therefore ... from the lips of Hillary ... our "national interest" dictates a military attack on Iran. Not to destroy any fantasized "WMDs", but to cripple any support for the insurgent Shiite forces in Iraq. If Iraq can't be our client state, we'll have to destroy them to save them from their own folly.
-
Operation Chaos: Irrelevant or Total Failure
[Read the article: Clinton loses Limbaugh endorsement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Alex: "I'll be keeping an eye out for further analysis of this in the future."
Free analysis:
Final exit polls indicate that ~10% of voters were self-identified Republicans, who gave Hillary an 8-point advantage. That's 10,199 votes, almost 2/3 of her margin over Obama.
BUT ...
Among those ~16% who said they would be voting for McCain in the general election (apparently Republican-inclined), the margin was 59% to 41% for Obama, not Clinton.
BUT ....
Among those ~16% who were self-described "Conservatives", the margin went to Clinton, 64% to 36%, which gave Clinton the victory by adding 57,119 votes.
So, it's all a matter of characterizing Limbaugh listeners. If he only gets credit for Republicans taking Democrat ballots, then it was a small effect and a failure. If he gets credit for Conservatives voting for Clinton, then he "turned the tide" for a Clinton victory. Of course, he's anti-McCain, so he gets no credit or blame for McCain voters going heavily for Obama.
-
Dishonest and Bloodthirsty
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"They're as transparent as they are dishonest and bloodthirsty."
Absolutely correct. But, then what is one to make of a prominent Democrat named "Hillary" repeating the neocon's persistent war howl?
Quoting an inaccurate translation of Ahmadinejad, she insisted - contrary to all the evidence - that an attack on Iran now was absolutely essential to the survival of Israel. Was that just a "sop" for the Jewish vote?
I have a question: exactly when did the United States Senate approve a mutual defense treaty with Israel? When was the extension of our "nuclear umbrella" to Saudi Arabia debated and approved? Maybe I'm not paying attention.
-
How Many Seconds?
[Read the article: Finding Obama guilty of insufficient devotion to Israel]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"... Today, if an American politician said anything remotely like that ... how many seconds would elapse before the full-scale and permanent destruction of their political career was complete?"
Try nanoseconds.
There has been a de-facto amendment of the Constitution to allow political sentiment to substitute for a treaty adopted by the U.S. Senate. The entire government is committed the the "welfare and best interests" of another country, even though there is no mutual defense treaty with Israel.
Instead, Congress has conceded unlimited discretion to the Executive to decide who, what, where, and when this "pre-eminent, unchallenged world power" will bomb, invade, occupy, or destroy any country on earth.
That was explicitly done with the AUMF [Authorization for the Use of Military Force], which purported to authorize the invasion of Iraq, but actually gave the President the sole descretion on the use of military force anywhere in the world.
Thus, no Congressional debate is required for the President to bomb Somalia, Iran ... or Canada ... anytime he pleases.
This isn't just about Israel - though it is the primary beneficiary - it is about a full-blown Imperial Presidency, with none of the limits or restraints on his power that were specified by the Constitution.
Therefore, understanding the subjective whims of any potential President - who will be the unrestrained monarch of the "free world" - are critical to any election. After all, we are electing a military dictator, not a President.
-
Better to be wrong ... and victorious?
[Read the article: A great debate about Obama and Appalachia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... But do you want to be right, do you want to feel superior,or do you want to win?
I plea to just be wrong ... so we can win? Win what?
Of what use is a political victory if it is achieved by pandering to the worst qualities in human society? That's a defeat, not a victory.