Letters to the Editor
ggrazevich
Published Letters: 33 Editor's Choice: 3
-
It's not about defeatism, DCLaw1...
[Read the article: The risks of staying]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I would have been thrilled if the "clean" supplemental had gone down in defeat. It would be great if the most Democrats in Congress weren't fearful, hadn't internalized Republican talking points, and spoke out intelligently and forcefully like Feingold. But that's not the reality. Many of the Democrats we helped get elected, including those like Obama who were always against the war, don't seem to know how to even go about ending the war. My point was just that even if they did (and Glenn's post about the absurd myths surrounding defunding shows the right way to do it), the Codpiece in Chief and his minions could not be trusted to get it right. The absolute corruption at DoJ shows that they cannot be trusted to do the will of the people, even as expressed by a Congress full of Feingolds. They are all about, and only about, gaining political advantage and power. One way we might make headway is to pass the Murtha plan (full funding iff fully trained, fully equipped, fully rested) and keep passing it every single time it gets vetoed. That at least gives us sterling talking points that can be understood even by voters--and their representatives!--who have been hoodwinked into opposing defunding: Democrats want to keep the military strong, Bush doesn't care.
-
Compelling versus controlling
[Read the article: The risks of staying]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is no question that a Democratic-controlled Congress could compel an end to the war through defunding. In a best-case scenario (call it the fantasy withdrawal), our top-flight military commanders would engineer this feat as safely and expeditiously as possible without hindrance from a corrupt Republican civilian leadership. But if we accept the essence of the Iraq Study Group's report, our involvement in the war cannot end without negotiation. Congress cannot compel negotiation. Negotiation with all belligerent parties in Iraq, and with Iran, Syria, and other countries in the region is the sine qua non for the safe, orderly withdrawal of our forces. The Bush administration will not undertake this negotiation and cannot be compelled to do so by the Congress (or at least by the Congress alone--one can imagine events in the real world combined with Congressional pressure compelling them to do so). That is why I believe that only a Democratic president, in full control of an executive branch (i.e., with no residual "loyal Bushie" holdovers), can effect an end to this war. Imagine a scenario in which the Democrats in Congress had indeed embraced the ISG report in December, and even somehow contrived to compel--with the full consultation of the military leadership--a significant withdrawal by the end of March 2008. Even with near-flawless planning by military professionals, absent negotiation, it is entirely plausible that there would be at least a few disorderly, even chaotic "bug-outs" that would be played up by the noise machine with the willing aid of the Republican political directorate into Vietnamesque helicopters-on-the-embassy-roof images. (And recall that that emblematic moment that was ruthlessly manipulated to unfairly tar more than a generation of Democrats happened under a Republican administration!) I go back time and again to Atrios's assertion that one cannot unsh*t the bed. I know that he favors rapid and complete withdrawal, but I have to think that if we take his trope seriously, we are dealing with the Augean stables of sh*tted beds, and it will take a Democratic Congress AND a Democratic executive AND a fully committed military (we desperately need to build bridges to and credibility with a strong--60 percent plus--majority of military families; let's start not just with Cindy Sheehan and her many supportors, but bring in those who would only listen to an Andrew Bacevich, Sr., for example) to end the war the real way, not the fantasy way.
-
The difference between 1995 and 2007
[Read the article: What Democrats need to learn about power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The difference is that in 1995 the American people did not favor the changes to Medicare that Gingrich and the Republicans were trying to push through. In 2007, and indeed before the 2006 election, polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans favors timelines for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.
-
His base will love this
[Read the article: "I think the best thing for me to do is just talk about the facts"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Send over your scientists and we'll share our missle defense technology"? With the Russkies? This is what the great Reagan's Star Wars dream has come to?
-
Yeah, danstr
[Read the article: "I think the best thing for me to do is just talk about the facts"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I strung 2 together for conciseness: "Let's share technologies" and the following one about the scientists sharing visions (halluncinating scientists, that's all we need).
-
Lord, what whiners these viewers be
[Read the article: "The Sopranos" goes dark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The viewers who are whining about the blackout ending cheating them from finding out "what happened" to their favorite characters on "The Sopranos" are, somehow I think, the same people who, upon finding out *exactly* "what happened" to their favorite characters at the end of "Six Feet Under," reacted by either 1) going into a deep depression because they found out too much, or 2) going into denial and telling themselves that "what happened" was all just in Claire's imagination. Face it folks: Tony was whacked with a shot to the brain at the word "stop." Instant blackout; total nothingness. We saw how Junior was "fading to black," then we saw Tony take the quick route.
-
If the VP's not part of the executive branch
[Read the article: White House: Trust the "sole enforcer"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Then it's time for Congress to separate the Office of the Vice President from the rest of the executive branch when it comes to the budget. Let there be a separate bill for the OVP, just like there is for every other agency. Let Cheney go up to the Hill to testify on why Congress should fund the OVP and for how much. No testimony, no funding. Problem, Dick? Take it up with the Supreme Court.
-
One thing remains
[Read the article: The imperial vice presidency]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One thing remains unexplained and perhaps inexplicable: the Harriet Miers nomination. Is this a case where the Decider decided to decide for himself and simply refused to listen to the Chenator?