Letters to the Editor
Scientician
Published Letters: 525 Editor's Choice: 1
-
jhillr64
[Read the article: Major troop reductions imminent -- again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Your unwarranted aspersions at Paul D aside, your thesis here seems to be that having a draft would make the nation's leadership more wary of going to war etc.
There was a draft in Vietnam. It manifestly failed to achieve that aim. True, it's because there were too many outs for the Dick Cheney's of the world to take advantage of, but what makes you think a modern draft wouldn't have such outs?
Hell, Bush himself did not qualify for avoiding the draft, except that Daddy improperly got him to the top of the line for a safe National Guard position.
Any modern draft, even if legally applied equally across all social classes would have hidden outs for the rich and powerful. Even if Paris Hilton got drafted or Donald Trump Jr, they would be given safe trades or safe assignments away from actual danger.
It would result in massive social upheaval, but still fail to counter the influence of the military industrial complex (Who would be particularly well situated to ensure their children were never in serious danger if drafted).
-
This is a tough case to make
[Read the article: The risks of staying]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And I think Glenn made it well. It is fair at this point to make a bald accusation of dishonesty at the neo-cons and calmly assert they only want to remain in Iraq for ulterior motives.
It fits them perfectly: Their ideology calls for lying to the masses to get them to accept otherwise unacceptable policies in order for the Serious leaders gifted with True Insight to lead the country for the Greater Good whether the people want it or not.
You know, it occurs to me that the Democrats missed an additional great opportunity in the recent funding supplemental. They were able to get a minimum wage increase approved in the bill, knowing Bush wouldn't veto and the Republican senate wouldn't filibuster because warmongering is much more important to Republicans than is keeping the poor down.
Well, they should have put in a provision explicitly barring any military action against Iran without Congressional approval under any circumstances.
See if Bush would be willing to veto that. If he did, then they could attack him for wanting to start another war without cause, and if he didn't then it would be explicit law that no war with Iran would take place.
Of course, AIPAC was able to throw its weight around a couple months ago to stop just such an act being voted on, which was a real shame.
Perhaps this is something to keep in mind for the next supplemental. If we can't stop this war by God, let's at least prevent the next one.
-
Neo-conservatives are liars, by definition
[Read the article: The risks of staying]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn didn't quote this in the article but it bears remembering:
“There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people,” he says in an interview. “There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”
- Irving Kristol, father of Neo-conservatism
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
- Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush By RON SUSKIND
So don't forget, these people don't just use specious arguments because they're deluded (though they are), it's also that they use meretricious and mendacious reasoning to dishonestly advocate for one thing while slyly pursuing other goals.
They do not believe in honest debate in itself.
-
Springy:
[Read the article: The risks of staying]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So there is one risk, Glenn, for you: conflict with Iran. This seems less likely today, as the US is in talks with Iran for the first time for several years.
Oh great, and no scheme has ever entailed using the breakdown of negotiations (conducted in bad faith) as an additional spur to the necessity of war? What the hell do we know about what is being said at those bargaining tables.
Even grade 6 educated mafia morons know something about giving your enemy an offer he must refuse so that you get to fight him, and it looks like "he started it" while you were nobly talking to him.
Don't mistake me, I can't be sure that's what's happening here, perhaps Condi Rice is sincere and Pelosi's trip to syria has strengthened the foreign policy realist elements in the Bush admin, but I'm not prepared to discount the Cheney element sabotaging such talks.
-
Shameless plug
[Read the article: The risks of staying]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If any of you are registered at DailyKos, I have diared this article and would appreciate recommends to help promote it:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/28/111318/219
Url also in my name if you like clicky things.
Also, please do remember to digg this one.
-
Washington Note Article
[Read the article: The risks of staying]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Someone in my dailyKos diary linked to this:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002145.php
I don't know this source very well and I don't know how the author purports to know what is going on here exactly.
Some insight from anyone knowledgeable about the veracity of this would be appreciated, however it seems quite believable - that Cheney is trying to foster a war with iran and is prepared to do an end run around Bush to get it, if he can't convince Bush to do it willingly.