Letters to the Editor
markworthi
Published Letters: 18 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Thanks for the drumbeat , GK
[Read the article: Being a rebel is so 19th century]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obama has many imposing obstacles to overcome if he has any hope of winning the Democratic Primary, and none seems more forbidding than the wall put up by those who claim his victory would only ensure another Republican presidency. Their cynical attitude is that Americans simply will not elect a Black man, since our racism runs way too deep. How sad, the way we're willing to smother a baby in its crib, ostensibly with the justification that the world awaiting is a mean and savage place.
To invoke another analogy, those very cynics-- those whose hopelessness seems to add substance to racism, though they themselves may not be racist-- also remind me of the allegory about the old elephant, tethered to a sapling by a tenuous rope. Never does he dare to stray beyond the tiny perimeter that the rope allows, never does he test the strength of the sapling. He learned, as a calf, the futility of trying.
Perhaps we should dare to hope. Let writers like GK provide the inspiration, the now murmurring drum beat (whether to a different drummer, or not) that will reach a crescendo as election time draws a bit closer. Beyond primitive faith, Obama, himself, will provide the substance!
Mark W
-
Where has it been conclusively shown that Bush lied about Iraq?
[Read the article: Why Bush hasn't been impeached]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As far as I know, there exists nothing that can irrefutably support such a case. Our common sense and intuition may provide the impetus for the impeachment of Bush-- we all know in our heart of hearts that the President had determined to go to war, regardless of whether or not WMD's and Al Quaeda links existed-- but, alas, impeachment would require something more substantial than a strong odor.
The main reason that Bush will never appear as plaintiff before the senate is simply that the president’s artistry would prevail. A lie would never be identified as a lie: Bush, the master chiaroscurist, would simply claim that his noblest intentions were foiled by poor intelligence (ambiguousness intended); that the actions he took were required by faith, which was nevertheless guided by his instinct to protect Americans, and so on. How to distinguish between a lie and a colossal mistake? Our good sense tells us that he even lies about being mistaken, but all we’d ever be able to substantiate would be the mistake itself. Unfortunately, ineptitude would be a convincing defence, one that would result in acquittal.
Gary Kamiya’s point that our sanctimonious legislators don’t want to impeach because they are loathe to confront their own complicity in Bush’s various misdimeanors is also true, to some extent; however, I don’t believe complicity extends far enough that GK should adopt the inclusive “we”. Those leaders who voted to support the President did so in spite of deeply felt opposition among huge numbers of their constituents. Their authorization of the use of force does not reflect “our” latent reverence for war, but was a betrayal to all those who recognized the fraud for what it was. Instead of discussing the far-fetched possibility of some ill-fated impeachment, we should call to account all those who continue to rely on our credulousness, all those who claim they, too, were relying on the best information that was available at the time.
Mark W