Letters to the Editor
The Reality Kid
Published Letters: 312
-
Incremental change will not be televised
[Read the article: Democrats bear responsibility for restoring habeas corpus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I admire Mr. Greenwald's commitment to incremental change. But I also relate to Che Pasa's observation that it may already be too late for such tactics.
Despite the current disdain for timetables, ask yourselves this simple question:
Which will come first: the restoration of habeus...or the next terror attack on American soil?
-
Letters to the Editor Gone Wild!
[Read the article: A beautiful mosaic of anti-blogger hatred]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Letters to the editor gone wild! Or maybe: Ombudsmen, everywhere!
Let's not overlook the fact that nobody likes to be constantly looking over his/her shoulder and worrying about complaints, corrections or worse.
One reason for the MSM's resentment is the same reason that political administrations (used to) resent the MSM.
Many bloggers are playing watchdog to the watchdogs. Some are "letter writers", shocked-and-disappointed or offering pithy corrections. Others analyze from an over-arching ethical or historical vantage point (the ombudsmen), thereby adding to the story and - dare I say it? - watching out for the public interest.
And some are little more than public diarists, being snarky and whining to themselves about their plight.
Lest I be misunderstood: I'm all for all of it.
-
The failure lies in not choosing
[Read the article: Why Bush hasn't been impeached]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To impeach Bush would be to do irreparable harm to the American psyche, but to fail to impeach Bush would be to do irreparable harm to the American republic. At first glance, it appears to be a "Sophie's choice", but on closer examination, there is an undeniably correct choice.
-
Speaking of delusions...
[Read the article: Improvement in Iraq: Trust Joe Klein and his secret sources]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why persist in seeing this as a failure of [FILL IN THE BLANK - American journalism, politics, presidency, administration] and recognize it for what it is -- namely, the successful use of the tools and rhetoric of an autocratic imperial empire?
Bush is not a failed president, he is a successful emperor. Time magazine does not practice flawed journalism, it is a skillfully-employed organ of empire. All campaigns to expand the military "footprint" and control of resources vital to the empire will be glorious, justified and successful.
A failed democracy? Yes. The worst administration in the history of the American republic. Probably (but what republic?). But a well-managed and militarily-fueled empire? Absolutely. I would say the emperor and his court are doing a skillful and successful job of keeping the public in line while oiling the machinery of empire.
All hail General Petraeus and the glorious news from the front!
-
Ah, but it works, no?
[Read the article: Major troop reductions imminent -- again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That there is actually an expectation that the troops will come home establishes that the tactic works.
Of course, the truth of the statement above may depend on your definition of "come home".
And "troops".
-
Myth fueling myth - but what's at the root of it all?
[Read the article: The complete myth driving our Iraq "debate"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Two (2) points:
1) Glenn wrote: "...our Iraq war policy was just determined, in large part if not principally, by a complete myth..."
True, but American policy towards Iraq has, since 2001, been completely based on complete myth. La plus ca change...
2) Glenn wrote: "But the real reason this happened is because Democrats not only allowed it to occur, but eagerly helped it."
and later Glenn wrote:
"...the principal reason that Americans became convinced of that myth is because Democrats themselves embraced and propagated it."
Also true, but Glenn explains this as a function of politics and political consultants. I believe the truth lies deeper: the Democrats were eager to embrace and propogate this myth because the Democrats have a shared interest in ensuring its propogation.
All of which ultimately ties into another, over-arching myth, one raised in Glenn's last post - the myth that American troops are ever going to (voluntarily) leave Iraq. It ain't gonna happen and once you realize this, things such as the Democrats peculiar behaviour make more, er, sense.
-
@Paul Dirks
[Read the article: The complete myth driving our Iraq "debate"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hi, Paul -
If you can pardon the cynicism that colours (taints?) my observation, I see the underlying equation as follows --
Political power depends on currying support from corporations and other sources of money that, in turn, depends on a vital (yep, I'm going to say it!) military-industrial complex which, in turn, depends on expanding the empire of bases (thanks, Chalmers Johnson) and/or waging war.
Call me a "moonbat", but I believe in the self-preserving power of the military-industrial-CONGRESSIONAL complex. (And count the media corporations here - hello, GE/NBC)
Add to this equation the pre-requisite for being a viable political candidate for either major political party, namely, an unquestioned belief in the pursuance (usually termed the "defense of") of American "interests" abroad (e.g., contrast "all options on the table re Iran" from the Dem front-runners to, say, Gravel or Kucinich), and you arrive at 5 reasons why American troops will never be leaving Iraq - the 5 sprawling, permanent (sorry, "enduring") military bases already built there (although, in a troubling precedent, one of the bases is referred to as an "embassy").
The two-party system in the US gives an illusion of choice - both parties are intent on pursuing American eco-military hegemony and, once you accept that, the actions of the Democrats doesn't seem so strange. In fact, they are very much acting in context.