Letters to the Editor
calgodot
Published Letters: 256 Editor's Choice: 6
-
@timhowe
[Read the article: Tancredo's one-track mind]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I appreciate your dislike of Bush, but the Army's gang problem started before he took office. It is true that it has increased during his tenure, and it is arguable that the recruitment policies of the Army have become somewhat lax in their need to supply bodies for War Without End. But it is simply untrue to lay this one solely at Bush's feet.
In fact, the forces that drive young men into gangs are the very same forces which drive them to enlist: poverty, primarily, as well as the basic human need to be part of a group (family, gang, tribe, unit, etc), to belong. If you study the issue, you find that as gang populations rise (according to police reports), then gang presence in the US Army rises. In short, it's far from a conspiracy by MS-13 to get training for its troops, but rather an unfortunate side-effect of America's dwindling economy.
The recruiting standards have not relaxed so much that the Army will let "anyone enlist" - anyone can enlist in the Army, but they might not be inducted. The central problem is neither recruitment nor enlistment but rather criminal background checks (performed by outsourced agencies rather than the feds), which are not being done promptly, or sometimes not at all. It is similar to the problem faced by DHS with luggage handlers: hundreds were hired, and by the time all their backgrounds were checked, dozens of criminals were found (and dismissed).
As for Petraeus' knowledge, I was merely speculating, but unlike your own speculative accusation my conjecture was done with a bit of knowledge about the military and its workings. The US Army is so vast and compartmentalized that most generals have no idea what's going on outside their purview. "Need to know" rules more than just the intelligence world: even trivial military data won't be possessed by someone without a compelling reason for knowing. Althought it wouldn't be improper for Petraeus to know about this gang problem, the likelihood is that he does not.
Counter-insurgency has been Petraeus' bailiwick for some time; since it hardly concerns recruitment or discipline within the ranks, and is a relatively recent issue, there's a high chance that Petraeus has little or no knowledge of it. He's a tactics guy, a strategist and a theorist, without much of a "hands-on" history when it comes to internal Army bureaucracy. Running a war against insurgents takes a lot of time and energy, and relatively speaking, this is a minor problem in the face of that war. Recruitment and personnel issues are not his concern, but rather the concerns of numerous, much lower-ranked officers.
But you know, I can see you have an axe to grind. So grind away, but watch where you swing it.
-
Clinton Democrats are so digusting
[Read the article: Obama and the white working class]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is now a bad move to speak the truth in a campaign, thanks to the Hillary Clinton crowd.
If you actually notice the effect on the 'working class' of years of government-corporate abuse, and mention it out loud, then you may "seem to disrespect the disadvantaged working class."
Joan Walsh may have 'working class roots' - but she chopped them off, filed them down, and washed out all the dirt a long time ago. I'm astounded at her clear lack of morality, getting so 'troubled' about an essentially truthful statement from Obama, but dismissing lie after lie after lie from Clinton. Whatever roots she has, unless they stretch back to a country club, she's betrayed them, fully and willingly.
In their mad rush to defend any lie from Clinton and poince on the most trivial word from Obama, I'm beginning to think that Clinton Democrats may be worse for American than the entire GOP. They seem intent on turning the campaign into the 2008 version of Bush vs. McCain - soon some Clinton surrogate will begin trotting out bell-curve statistics which demonstrate a black man isn't smart enough to be President. (Why wouldn't they? There seems to be no limit to the depths they'll plunge.)
The true reason for the hyper-defensiveness and hysteria of the Clinton crowd is this: under their golden boy, poverty increase, jobs went overseas, and the 'working class' was further disenfranchised. The promises of the first Clinton administration contributed to this bitterness. Hillary Clinton is banking that the 'working class' are too stupid to remember this, and will once more be conned into voting against their own interests. Barack Obama, in the other hand, is appealing to their intelligence and emotion, asking them to put themselves above politics. He's not dismissing their bitterness as non-existent the way Clinton and McCain have.
So who is it that's more disrespectful of the 'working class?' The guy who actually listens to them, studies their problems, and truly attempts to address the issues concerned, or the two wealthy privileged candidates who have had years of 'experience 'and thus many chances to do something, but instead chose to be a part of the problem rather than a solution, and then choose to poo-poo the emotional effects of years of poverty by simply refusing to acknowledge its existence?
Because that's what it amounts to: Clinton's '35 years of experience' is 35 years of screwing the working class. McCain's is even moreso.
But a black man speaking truths to power and privilege? That troubles poor little white women like Joan Walsh, working class traitor.
Sickening.