Letters to the Editor
Dana Runs
Published Letters: 148 Editor's Choice: 14
-
And then what?
[Read the article: Must be more "phony soldiers"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm all for leaving Iraq. We never should have invaded. Invading countries is something the "bad guys" do, and we're supposed to be the good guys, right? So, yes, get out.
But then what?
Oh, I'm not that concerned with the inevitable strife in Iraq to follow. I think water seeks its own level, and something stable will happen to Iraq (3 states, genocide, who knows?). What I am concerned about is that George W. Bush will have created the perfect storm of anti-US terror environments. A lawless land where al Qaeda and other terrorists already roam free; a young population with little opportunity and a lot of hatred for the U.S.; and lots and lots and lots of oil bordered by Iran and Syria. If there is a better recipe for future terrorist attacks against the U.S. I don't know what it would be.
At the very least, we would have to engage in untold billions of dollars and years of rebuilding there. Of providing infrastructure that is lacking, now. Of educating children (and how about American-style medrassas to combat the anti-Americanism). Of serious, real, satisfying compensation to the families of the tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were killed because of the American invasion and presence. And of true remorse for the needless tragedy we have caused.
Of course, to do that you need stability first. The paradox is that we won't have stability until we leave, but we can't right our wrongs if we aren't there.
And what about the innocents who die because we uprooted and left a vacuum? Do we not care about those lives, either?
God, we are in for a generation of violence against us. :-(
-
Ugh. It's why I continue to (stupidly) wish Gore would get into the race
[Read the article: Quote of the Day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This phenomenon of Hillary Reflex Disease -- where faces redden, pulses quicken, the chance of stroke increases and irrational blathering issues forth from the mouths of sufferers -- is the one weakness of Sen. Clinton's that concerns me. On substance and ability to run the country, I prefer Hillary over Obama or any of the other Dem candidates. But it's a fact that, as nominee, she would mobilize Republicans who would otherwise stay home, not vote and not contribute money to the Republican nominee, thereby making the race closer than it otherwise has to be.
Gore is the cure. Too bad the bastard (and by that I mean the wonderful, thoughtful, intelligent, deep, capable, patriotic, award-winning man who should have been president) won't run. Hillary will be a good candidate, but not as formidable or, more importantly, as demoralizing to the other side as Al Gore would be.
Just MHO.
http://danaruns.typepad.com/danarunstheworld/
-
Clinton has turned me around.
[Read the article: Clinton goes after Obama on Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was at first quite leery about a Clinton presidency. After watching the campaign thus far, I have become semi-convinced that she is the best choice for the nation. Certainly, she fights as hard as her husband did, and runs a strong, focused, ramrodding campaign. Where Bush substitutes stubbornness for strength, Hillary's campaign (and her life) shows the real thing. She also seems smarter, tougher, more nuanced, more pragmatic, more experienced and more possessed of a thorough world-view than Obama or any of her other adversaries.
I also appreciate that her memos and opposition research are (thus far, at least) issue-oriented rather than the kind of distracting clap-trap we normally see.
I get the sense of Republican campaigns as being tougher and less wishy-washy than Democratic campaigns, and Hillary seems capable of beating the Republicans at their own style. There is just something indefinable about her, like she knows from somewhere deep within that she is tougher than any person on earth. And that is what will be needed to beat the Republican nominee.
I credit both campaigns. Hard body blows from Clinton and Obama, but no low ones thus far. Yay, our team! :-)
http://danaruns.typepad.com/danarunstheworld/
-
Saintzak
[Read the article: Clinton goes after Obama on Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Has it occurred to you that Hillary might be a tad more reasoned, nuanced an thoughtful, and a lot less eager to jump into war than Bush is? People with your knee-jerk reaction seem to me to be thinking more about Bush than about Clinton. If you think she will be another Bush, you couldn't be more wrong. Compare W and Bill Clinton. Which do you think Hillary will be more like, hmmm?
You're not thinking deeply enough on this, if you liken a Hillary presidency to Bush's. Look beyond the bumper-sticker!
And apologizing for your vote is a certain road to election defeat. Do you not know that?
-
Oh, Good Lord!
[Read the article: Clinton goes after Obama on Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Those who say Hillary is the same as Bush or as a Republican, or who intone that they can't vote against her because she is not principled or moral, are engaging in exactly the kind of Republican head-in-the-sand sloganeering-as-substitute-for-thought they they pretend to loathe.
What should President Hillary Clinton do about Iran and nukes?
Do you think Hillary will simply continue Bush's Iraq policies? What should she do? What do you think will happen to our security should all troops just pull out and leave the place in a vacuum?
Do you know what her vision is for the American economy and infrastructure? If so, why can't you support it?
How familiar are you with her new health care proposal, and why isn't it a good practical compromise?
Do you believe in pragmatism in politics, as Hillary represents, or should we substitute a liberal ideological demagogery in place of the Republican we currently have?
Let's have some more substance in these bold rejections, please. The majority of them sound more emotional and general than substantive and specific. Precisely what substantive thing about Clinton is it that would make you rather see the Republican nominee elected over her?