Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 266 Editor's Choice: 45
-
They Do It Because They Are Successful at It (by their narrow lights)
[Read the article: Interview with Aaron Brown on NYT "military analyst" story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In World War I, the medical community essentially told the miltary that their practice of moving soldier who had been exposed to Spanish Influenza around the country was going to result in millions of deaths.
World War I censorship and the jingoistic press at the time pretty much stifled any discussion of this, and the result was that millions of people, including millions of Americans, died unnecessarily.
What did the military learn from this? Well, clearly there was no remorse, no repercussions about having been directly responsible for killing millions of people, including millions of Americans. Instead, the military learned that its freedom to perform its mission as it wished to could be enhanced by control of the means of communication.
It really didn't take a lot of brains to know that the Iraq mission in 2003 had a vast potential for going off the rails. The Atlantic Monthly has provided evidence of exactly who was ignored and how right those who were ignored were. But those voices were stifled in the run-up to the war by the very set of attitudes and policies that Aaron Brown (whom I also generally have liked since his days at KING 5 in Seattle) still stands up for.
The result has been the deaths of millions of Iraqis and thousands of Americans, with Lord knows what else to come.
-
Hamas is its own worst nightmare
[Read the article: John McCain's serious foreign policy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm a fourth generation Zionist and the last thing I'd want is a U.S. president who was Hamas's worst nightmare. What I want is a U.S. president who will make it clear that he is not writing a blank check to the worst Likudnik excesses and that policy that operates on the lowest common denominator for the most radical settlers in the West Bank is unacceptable. The vast majority of Israelis would like nothing more than to rid themselves of the responsibility for administering land they know they shouldn't occupy. Peace is a fearful step but after last year's Lebanon war it is far better than any alternative.
As to McCain, frankly I think he's falling into a trap. The Democrats have yet to play the strongest card against him, which is exactly what Glenn points out: he is at best Bushism with a human face. Other than his opposition to torture (which we get no matter who is elected), there appears to be no substantial policy difference between him and the Current Occupant. The MSM can complain all they want about the vacuity of Obama's calls for change, but ultimately McCain is calling for more of the same, and an educated and informed electorate should have none of it.
-
Here's what will happen
[Read the article: How much voter fraud is there, really?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In the lily white rural communities of Indiana, no one's going to enforce the law, and everyone will vote. In urban areas, there will be Republican poll watchers who will kick and scream if anyone so much as tries to vote without an I.D. (and no, sir, that's not a valid ID, that driver's license picture looks nothing like you). And the lines will get really long about two hours before the polls close and lots of people will leave the line because they have kids to pick up or jobs to go to or they're hungry.
This is the Republican way. They complain about "welfare fraud" so loudly that we spend ridiculous sums on making sure no one who is unqualified gets a dime; it would be easier to just dump the money from a plane in some communities. Their goal isn't some pristine perfect system, as SCOTUS seems to think is a valid legislative goal. It's perpetuation of power, plain and simple.
-
Hillary will do what she will do
[Read the article: What should Hillary Clinton do now?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The last time the Democrats took the fight into the convention was 1980, Carter versus Kennedy. Didn't exactly work in November. The last time the GOP did was 1976, Ford versus Reagan. Same result.
Is it about a Democratic president in January or about Hillary? It's for her to decide. And it will be fair for all of us to judge her by her actions. And it will be fair for all of us to judge her by her actions.
-
Hillary's Zelig-like Performance
[Read the article: Clinton supporters push back against NARAL endorsement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not sure many people heard Hillary's discussion of abortion at the faith-based forum before the Pennsylvania primary. I did. I listened to it appalled. She talked a lot about the terrible forced abortions used in Rumania and the one-child policy in China, but never once used the word "choice." I wondered if I were listening to Laura Bush, not her predecessor. NARAL has nothing to apologize for.
-
Reagan was also the spokesman for "family values"
[Read the article: Ronald Reagan: Chamberlainian appeaser of the 1980s]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So long as they didn't apply to, say, visiting his grandchildren.
He was the idol of the Christian right.
So long as he didn't have to go to church.
He wasn't teflon. He was a graven image made in their own minds.
-
Wait a Minute, Electro Robot!
[Read the article: Are the Jews good for Barack Obama?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The money supply of Latvia is mine, You drew Uzbekistan. If we can't keep these things straight, who's going to get the supplies for next Pesach?
But seriously, I support Obama because I believe it's time to break the hold of AIPAC over policies that are important to not just America, but American Jews. Eight years of neglect by messianic Christians who think supporting Israel will bring on the second coming has not made a single Israeli safer, nor a single American. It's a pretty easy choice.
-
What is so Hard to Understand about the Constitution
[Read the article: Psycho Christians and the media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Article VI, clause 3: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
What happened in Obama's church is not relevant to his qualifications to be President. That's what the Founding Fathers meant. And if you understand what a "religious test" meant in the 1700's, you'll understand this is exactly what they meant: no inquiry allowed. People have all kinds of funny ideas about the Founding Fathers, but if you read the Constitution it actually helps a lot to understand the principles on which this country was founded.