Letters to the Editor
rollotomasi
Published Letters: 166
-
Hmm, looks like a nice enough place.
[Read the article: Michael Gordon, the administration's best friend at the Times]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Congratulations, Glenn, on actually making it over here.
The difference between Michael Gordon's and Glenn's respective responses to contentious emails could not have been more striking. It is the difference between self-righteous arrogance and due diligence, and is why Salon can add one more to their list of subscribers.
-
Three (No, Make That Four) Wise Men and a Game
[Read the article: Gen. Odom explains basic reality to Hugh Hewitt and the "Victory Caucus"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One more “Hear, hear!” for Gen. Odom.
Glenn wisely notes the preposterousness of having to wear the flag lapels of patriotism, support of the troops and strength on national defense before even deigning to question Bush/Cheney’s disastrous Middle East policies. The Democrats and the few but growing interested Republicans should take note of the Gen. Odom’s refusal to let anyone else define the playing field.
IMO, the two defining moments reflecting if not expediting the change of opinion on the war were when Rep. Murtha came out against the war in late 2005 and when the generals started calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation a few months later. When Murtha came out against the war, the radical right immediately started comparing him to Michael Moore - and, darned if I didn’t see Fox News’s Brit Hume still doing so today @ http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/18/hume-murtha-smear/. Can’t wait to hear from the doddering old man Murtha (as Hume and the right-wing echo chamber are also depicting him) on this one.
It is a good measure of how far opinion has moved against the war that Gen. Odom is now being compared Murtha - I guess the stretch from top military brass to Moore is too far even for the malleable right wing authoritarian followers. The commentators from the right here as well as at Fox today only underscore the damage Murtha and the generals have done to the perverse neo-con, radical right agenda.
Speaking of Fox News and perverse, I don’t hold out much hope for the “hard-core 30%”, that some were discussing earlier today, either. Five years-plus on from 9/11, one cannot imagine the paralyzing anxiety and panic Fox still engender in their viewers with their constant, high-pitch fear-mongering. I would bet you could not find one hour of broadcasting on that network since 9/11 that would not have some reference to terrorism, either on the main broadcast or the scroll at the bottom. If you want proof, try this:
When you have a minute or two - and, believe me, that is all you usually need, turn on Fox News and see how long it takes for some reference to terrorism to appear. For those whose stomachs are not as strong as Glenn’s, mute the sound. When I did it today, it took approximately one minute for a scroll to appear that described bombs being made with ingredients found around the kitchen sink, or something like that. With its various betting possibilities, this would make an excellent gambling or drinking game, but, as always, moderation in such activities is strongly encouraged.
(And one more big thumbs-up for clownsense – wise comes in many forms. In addition, he gives the joint a little class.)
-
Its About More than Flags on Lapels
[Read the article: Tony Blair's abrupt reversal on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Whether or not one supports the troops or a particular strategy is really a meaningless question that the right uses to deflect or limit discussion to a narrow area where those, such as the “guest commentator” in here, set the definitions to suit their narrow-minded agendas. As Glenn noted the other day, these tests where you have to wear the flag of patriotism, support of the troops and strength on national defense on your lapel are as childish as they are preposterous.
It should go without saying most of us that spend way too much time here commenting and lurking do so because we want to see the country and the world we live in be the best it can be and that we believe that many of those in power, whether willfully or ignorantly, have put our country, Iraq and the rest of the world we care so much about at increasingly greater risk, and there is no indication through their current policies that they are going to cease doing so. If the right can’t or won’t acknowledge at least that we care about our country at least as much as they do, and insist on some self-manufactured “test” of loyalty, then that’s their blindness, and as John Dean describes in CWC, we may not be able to do much about that.
If I’m a passenger with three others in a car traveling 40 miles an hour over the speed limit with a hairpin turn coming up, and I plead with the driver to slow down, the absurdity that the right is trying to pawn off is that I don’t care about the driver or the other passengers because I disagree with the way the driver is doing things. It is saddening to see someone come in here and act like he's done something simply by being unable or unwilling to distinguish support of a leader or his policies from support of the country he governs.