Letters to the Editor
C. Mosby
Published Letters: 304 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Much ado about, maybe, nothing.......
[Read the article: Condi's Iraq surprise]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don’t understand why (as manifested in the letters on this subject to date) there is such clamor and contentious demurring about who should get the credit for forming, or even permitting, a “study group” about the debacle that has developed in Iraq. What is abundantly clear, regardless of who initiated the idea or “facilitated” White House cooperation in its charter, is that it is more about whatever can be salvaged from the precipitously eroding perception of George W. Bush’s potential legacy. Sad to say, that fact is the unfortunate reality which makes this exercise (Iraq Study Group) so insulting to the American people. As insular as this president has been, it has also become increasingly obvious that he has a well-deserved and legitimate concern for the eventual historical assessment of his tenure in the White House.
The insult to the American people, is that Bush heretofore has used every other means at his disposal to “stay the course” for the duration of this unwarranted, and shameful waste of human life and material resources; while advancing multiple “straw man” arguments for continuing its prosecution. If that’s insufficient recognition to cause concern for his legacy, certainly squandering the obvious opportunity for elevation of this country’s stature and respect in the world after 9/11 should be. Think about it. Does anyone believe that the impetus for any kind of so-called “Study Group” was due to an epiphany moment about the ongoing costs of this calamity?
More likely, White House cooperation, regardless of who “facilitated” it, was driven by the same reality check that inspired Ronald Reagan to enlist the services of Mr. Abshire, amidst the tumult surrounding Iran Contra in his second term.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051121/21qa.htm
I agree that Frank Wolf was undoubtedly the key player in driving this. I also agree with Lloyd Little that Rice was simply doing her job as it relates to this issue. Rice’s performance as described here, despite Benjamin’s kudos for her acumen and her “maneuvering to sidestep…………Rumsfeld”, is entirely consistent with her manifest protectionist attitude toward this president. Her role could best be described, from what’s reported, as the facilitator. Please take note of the timing of the initial meeting (11/29/05) and the timing of the Abshire USnews article referenced above (11/21/05).
Before engaging in any polemics about who should or shouldn’t get credit for this, we should be aware of what the Rice State Department’s ISG position is:
“The department and the administration have embraced this effort from the beginning as a way to show and maintain public support for advancing our goals in Iraq.”
Given what this administration has, at various times, stated as “our goals”; who really thinks this is something now worth even considering for whom the credit should be given? It seems the people who voted on November 7th didn’t think much of that agenda.
Although the president has stated that “We were never about stay the course” during the run-up to the election, this “Study Group” looks suspiciously like a way to find replacement language and attendant tactical initiatives for “stay the course” before the baton for this catastrophe is passed by Bush to his successor. We should also be aware that Rice assuredly knows she has inextricably tied herself to the legacy of this president and this administration.
I think we should all be asking how many more lives are being lost and how much more this is costing us while these characters have been germinating this idea (ISG) and sitting in meetings. Presumably, these meetings and finesse development exercises are still ongoing while the carnage and malfeasance continues. In my opinion, these are more appropriate concerns than engagement in discussions about who gets credit for what amounts to a dubious report that today remains released.
-
Re: Much ado about, maybe, nothing.......
[Read the article: Condi's Iraq surprise]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Oops!
The last word in my letter under this heading should obviously be: UNreleased
-
Memo to me
[Read the article: Memo to O.J.: Kill yourself]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Read something by Debra Dickerson = Waste of remaining inventory of potentially productive time.
I thought Salon would help me keep that rule since it seemed to have learned its lesson after publishing an equally stupid article by DD (anybody remember “I want you to want me”?). The editors, after that pitiful piece of self-absorbed crap, masquerading as a review of the film “Wedding Crashers”, appeared to have dispensed with her services.
I recently noticed that DD was showing up again in Salon; but managed to keep my rule.
Well, I thought, when this piece of delusional drivel showed up, maybe she was just in the penalty box and Salon now thinks she’s grown as a writer. Taking that leap in false logic, I then violated my own rule. The title should have been a clue.
Fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me…… (Help me out here, Dubya)
-
Memo to Linda M:
[Read the article: Memo to O.J.: Kill yourself]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for the advice on what to read in Salon.
I need all the help I can get.
I did read those articles you recommended before reading the Debra Dickerson piece. I chose not to comment on them.
Did you comment on them before adding your response to the 88 letters here?