Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 83 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Liars of a feather flock together
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My guess is that Liasson probably feels that wildly asserting things to be true when she's just guessing (after wilfully keeping herself ignorant) counts as truth telling, comparatively, because she decided to throw in her professional lot with people who tell blatant whoppers like this for a living:
HUME: But is [Obama] on the verge of changing on his long-stated promise that says, "The mission is to get out and I'll have them all out, all the forces out, in 16 months?"
As Hume certainly knows full well - and as Liassan, meekly acquiescing in the lie in order to build her little sandcastles on top of it, knows full well, Obama has never said "all the forces out". He has been scrupulous in always saying "all the combat forces out."
When lies are the air you have chosen to breathe, how can you be expected to notice when mere falsehoods slip out of your mouth from time to time?
-
A pretty inversion
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So our L.W.M., for whom my respect has grown considerably since first tangling with him here, inverts the neo-con dictum (was it Larry DeRita?) that "the path to Tehran lies through Baghdad", to "the path out of Baghdad lies through Tehran." If we are to extricate ourselves from Iraq with a minimum of American or Iraqi blood - "as carefully as we went recklessly in", you might say - that only has to be posited for its truth to be obvious.
The day may yet come, and will certainly come if McCain is elected, when we just plain have to leave, whatever the cost in Iraqi blood. But that hard contingency is still a few years down the road.
If my small brain is encompassing this, L.W.M. envisions this game plan: Barack begins withdrawing combat brigades. In parallel, he begins withdrawing the corresponding support troops. Up to a point, these moves will help stabilize the government, and as confidence measures will grease the very unlubricated wheels of a parallel diplomacy with Tehran.
America's interest and Tehran's both clash (we each want to maximize our respective influence) and coincide (we each want to stabilize the area, and ultimately to retire U.S. forces to her reliable American satrapies). Such is the classic meat of conflict short of war, aka diplomacy.
However, there is a point past which, in the absence of firm political advances, further reduction of US forces will exacerbate instability rather than diminish it. Obama does not envision reducing forces below that level, under present political circs probably a third to a half of the present personnel.
Finally, the notion that "combat" forces can be withdrawn and only "non-combat" forces left behind is fanciful, risible, chimerical, a mere meme to calm the rubes. Just as a half of a planarian, with its head cut off, will grow a new head or die, an army in hostile territory with its combat forces withdrawn will redesignate a big chunk of itself as a combat organ, or perish. It will be far better off if that chunk was already trained and equipped for combat. And that is one of the "facts on the ground" Obama already expects the commanders to convey to him.
A gentleman's C, maestro?
-
Fine NYT editorial, but
[Read the article: Aug. 8, 1974 vs. July 9, 2008]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Only a few senators, by the way, know just what those companies did.
Only four senators have been handed a purported account of just what those companies did. Even they don't know whether their ultrasecret briefings consisted of truth or lies.
-
@DCLaw
[Read the article: Democrats' strategy: Strength through bowing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]His blatant reversal on FISA, regardless of how "underground" an issue some think it to be, only contributes to the counter-narrative that he will calculate as nakedly as any other politician.
You accurately gauge the likely effect of Obama's capitulation on his image and the enthusiasm of the base.
But while his vote was certainly calculated, few votes have ever been calculated less nakedly. He's left every man jack (and woman jill) of us guessing what the hell his calculation was. Yes, many of us guessers are sure we have the One Right Answer to that question. It's just that the various One Right Answers don't agree with each other.
He saw the whip count, realized he couldn't prevent the outcome, and went along to at least look like he had some clout with his own party. He has a Secret Plan to fix things when he's elected (not popular on this site, but on Dkos, oh brother, and this is really five or six different possible calculations in its own right.) He gets the same willies as the Vichy Dems when Republicans whisper, "soft on terror". He'd be happy to stand up for the Constitution in open debate, but wants to control which issues will dominate the fall campaign, and prefers other ones. He doesn't want open schism with the Congressional leadership. I could easily go on. And frankly, I haven't a clue which if any of these calculations are actually his.
His "I don't do cowering" is looking mighty thin at this point. But as a slit-eyed poker player, he sure doesn't do naked.