Letters to the Editor
Ché Pasa
Published Letters: 865 Editor's Choice: 2
-
First Principle: The Military Always Lies
[Read the article: Everyone we fight in Iraq is now "al-Qaida"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and lies about everything. Even when they're telling the truth, which is very rarely.
All of a sudden, all "enemy" (which is to say, opposition of any kind, armed or not) in Iraq became "al-Qaeda", and they became "al-Qaeda" so they could be killed with impunity in the various operations under way, most particularly the one in Baqouba, where the Native population has been cordoned off and told to stay in their houses while the place (including their houses) is reduced to rubble and "al-Qaeda" is exterminated. Except that, apparently, the "al-Qaeda" fighters have run away. The way they do. And what of the civilian population? Oh well, just call them "al-Qaeda" and have at them.
Worked in Vietnam -- where the civilians were called NVA and Viet Cong (sympathizers) -- it should work in Iraq-nam. Shouldn't it?
This Petraeus fellow... not all that bright, is he?
And Odierno, what's with him? He seems to be the one who issued the order that henceforth all opposition was to be called "al-Qaeda". Or was it Cheney?
But the whole point, as always, is to be able to kill and destroy with no questions asked, no regrets.
That always teaches the Wogs.
Sigh.
-
Um...
[Read the article: Everyone we fight in Iraq is now "al-Qaida"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is an indication that there has quietly been a strategy shift away from a "hearts and minds" approach and toward a "let them hate us so long as they fear us" approach. -- C2H5OH
There has never been a "hearts and minds" strategy in Iraq. There's been occasional talk about it, but no action apart from some badly painted schools and sewage flowing through clinics. From the get it has been about hate and fear and slaughter and destruction and little else.
But yes, the AQ designation is intended to silence critics of the exponential increases in civilian casualties.
-
Well, Glenn
[Read the article: FDL Book Salon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think you really wussed out on the impeachment topic over at FDL by not explaining, for example, what you think is the Big Priority all the Congressional Energy would be sapped from if the House started holding pre-Impeachment High Crimes and Misdemeanor Hearings.
Congress is basically non-functional as a representative body right now, and not all from Republican obstructionism. No, a big part of it, perhaps the biggest, is the fact that the House and the Senate capitulated to the White House over the War Funding Supplemental, essentially sending the White House one bill with (unenforceable) timelines that was vetoed, and then giving up. Then, magnifying the outrage, they come with a Deal with the White House for Immigration "Reform". Oh, and don't forget the NAFTA Deal.
Who knows what other shit they are trying to "negotiate" behind the scenes. Whatever it is, I'm sure it is just as ugly, just as unpopular, and just as infuriating. To everyone -- except of course their corporate sponsors.
So why don't they just stop it? Drop all this Deal-making, negotiating, and capitulating and take up something important, hearings on the anti-American, anti-Constitutional, lawless con game emanating from the White House?
What harm could be done? They would be unable to do anything else? So? This is a bad thing how exactly?
And the People might just learn a thing or two.
-
Glenn you still haven't addressed the Question
[Read the article: FDL Book Salon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You didn't address it at FDL and you are not addressing it here:
What is the Big Priority Congress would miss out on if they were to take up hearings preliminary to, setting the stage for, impeachment?
Scarecrow raised it and so did I, and you have specifically avoided this fundamental question. Precisely what is Congress doing that is so much more important that, oh, I don't know, preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States?
What they are doing, more than anything else, is trying to work "deals" with the White House -- insofar as possible behind the scenes, out of public view. And these "deals" have touched off a growing public outrage toward Congress and the White House and precipitously declining public approval. In what way, exactly, would looking into the issues that may lead to impeachment or criminal indictment be any worse than what they're doing now?
I understand that impeachment is not likely to happen. Impeachment should happen, but the likelihood of it grows dimmer every day. And I understand you don't want them to waste time on it. Just like you don't want the blogosphere to waste time on "things that won't happen." That's not the point, however. The point is that Congress -- as a whole -- be seen to be at least attempting to do something to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against the depredations of an out of control executive. Oh, and stop funding that gott-dambed war, too. We aren't seeing that, are we? Instead, we are seeing avoidance and capitulation. And "deals."
Why do you want that to continue?
(And last time I checked, Lieberman was still in the Senate.)